Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WESLEYAN ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Economy

Mr. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the Scottish economy.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I met the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 30 June.

Mr. Robertson: Next time the Secretary of State meets the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, he will find him, like so many other people in Scotland, deeply concerned at the paralysis that has hit the Scottish Development Agency due to the cash crisis that it faces. Is he aware that many projects in my constituency and in many others are being hit by the funding crisis? Will he ensure that the agency immediately receives the funds it requires to retain its credibility among the Scottish people and to create the jobs that Scotland so deeply needs?

Mr. Rifkind: When I met the general secretary of the STUC a few days ago, he did not raise that subject, but emphasised that he thought that the Government's proposals for merging the SDA with the Training Agency were a splendid idea, and that he and his colleagues looked forward to welcoming those proposals in the coming weeks and months. The SDA receives healthy funding, provided by the Government, and as a consequence is involved in a number of major projects around Scotland.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the TUC should be happy about jobs in Scotland? Will he confirm that Scotland's unemployment rate is lower than that of most of our European partners, including France, Belgium, Holland, Spain and Italy?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, that is correct. Although unemployment in Scotland is still far higher than any of us would wish to see, it has fallen by more than 100,000 in the past two years. As my hon. Friend rightly says, it is lower than

the level to be found in at least five other countries in the European Community—France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Ireland.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister will have seen the reports showing that £400,000 of the £3·7 million of public money that was put into the Wang project in Stirling is to be repaid. It that true? Will he also comment on the stories that Intel, a Californian company, may be interested in the plant? Does he believe that there is a realistic prospect of finding a buyer to take over the plant as a going concern? Does he accept that there must have been something very wrong with his Department's monitoring system when Wang so signally failed to meet its targets at Stirling and he was left with only one week's notice of the decision to decamp?

Mr. Rifkind: On the final point, Wang received financial assistance from the Government under the same criteria as that provided by former Labour Governments. It was precisely because of the difficulties that that created in the past that the Government changed the criteria in 1984. As regards the hon. Gentleman's other points, Wang has indicated that some repayment to the Government might be appropriate. I share the hon. Gentleman's deep interest in finding an alternative user for the site, but I earnestly suggest that at this stage speculation about who that potential user might be is not in the interests of Stirling or of investment in the area.

Standard Grade Development Programme

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the funding of the Government's standard grade development programme, particularly in relation to technological studies, computing studies and office information studies.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): To date, more than £37 million has been spent or provided for specifically for standard grade. This includes more than £9 million within local authorities' capital allocations for the purchase of scientific and technological equipment.

Mr. Dunnachie: It is obvious that the Minister has not met senior education officials in Strathclyde, who have expressed to me their grave concern about the severe underfunding of these important subjects in education and have asked me to ask the Minister to think again and to put money into these subjects so as to allow the young people of Scotland to be trained so as to enable them to compete in the new industries that are supposed to be coming to Scotland. Those education officials tell me that if they do not get the money they will view the future of those subjects with grave concern.

Mr. Forsyth: I am surprised that the education authorities are making their representations through the hon. Gentleman. The Scottish Education Department has received no representations of the kind that he has described. The education authorities have had substantial provision. If the Educational Institute of Scotland is worried about standard grade, it should address its criticisms in the first instance to the education authorities, to which adequate provision has been made.
I should say in defence of the Educational Institute of Scotland that its executive took a different position from


that of its conference and opposed any boycott of standard grade. It is unfortunate that the annual general meeting took such a view, and I hope that the teachers who have implemented standard grade so successfully will continue to make a contribution.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that there is an important role in all this for the Scottish Council for Educational Technology? Will he therefore ensure that it is properly resourced, including proper funding for the Scottish central film library and the Scottish film archives, which have made a major contribution to technology in our time?

Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have been sensitive to the needs of the Scottish film industry. I recall the hon. Gentleman telling me privately how pleased he was at the Government's announcement following our review. I am sorry that he is not prepared to say publicly in the House what he was prepared to say privately—[Interruption.]

Mr. Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have never at any time—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment?

Mr. Clarke: When a Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This all takes time out of other hon. Members' questions.

Mr. Clarke: The Minister has clearly misunderstood the meetings which took place about the Scottish Film Council and has confused it with the Scottish central film library. I believe that that was a genuine misunderstanding and that he should withdraw what he said.

Community Charge

Mr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of single parents in Scotland are gaining from the introduction of the community charge.

Mr. Rifkind: It is estimated that some 80 per cent. of single parents are better off under the community charge than they would be under the domestic rating system.

Mr. Harris: I welcome that answer, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that an even higher percentage—85 per cent.—of pensioners stand to benefit from the introduction of the community charge? Do not those two sets of figures amount to further evidence of the inherent fairness of the community charge compared with the present rating system?

Mr. Rifkind: That is undoubtedly true. It is also particularly welcome because single pensioners and single parents can be found among those with the lowest incomes in our society. The fact that they overwhelmingly benefit as a result of the change in the system of local taxation is, as my hon. Friend says, another vindication of that change.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister have a care about his use of words? The question was about gaining. How can he suggest that single parents or anyone on a low income will gain from the imposition of the poll tax? Will he also consider the huge cost of the tax to Scotland? It costs £30 million to £40 million more than the rates. What a burden that is, and what an intrusion it is on people's civil liberties.

Mr. Rifkind: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman with his oft-proclaimed interest in the well-being of the poorer sections of our community would be the first, if he wished to be seen as an objective commentator on these matters, to welcome the fact that 85 per cent. of single pensioners and 80 per cent. of single parents pay less now than they would be paying if domestic rates were still in force.

Mr. Douglas: They are not gaining.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman may not like the facts, but he will have to live with them.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that single parents in Dundee are not getting the full benefit and advantage of the community charge because since 1983 Dundee district council has paid the salary of Mr. Jim White, a full-time official of NALGO, who brought about the strike and has caused terrible inconvenience to single parent? Is that not a further example of why the community charge is far higher than it should be, and a factor which may be prevalent throughout Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: Undoubtedly, factors of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers have led to the consequences that he has described. I should have thought that anyone interested in the well-being of the community would wish to discourage any action by local authority officials or others which would have that effect. The vast majority of local authority officials are carrying out their responsibilities diligently and with due consideration for the important matters to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Maxton: Is not the only reason why single parents are marginally better off this year than they were last year the iniquitous 20 per cent. minimum payment that the Government imposed on those who are hardest up in our society? If the Secretary of State is so keen on statistics, why does he not tell us the percentage of people earning more than £25,000 per year who are considerably better off as a result of the poll tax?

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for rebuking the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and confirming that single parents and single pensioners are better off. That is the most eloquent denunciation yet of the nonsense that we have heard from some Opposition M embers.

Rural Housing

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of Scottish Homes to discuss the development of a rural housing strategy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The development of Scottish Homes' rural strategy was one of the issues discussed formally when I met Sir James Mellon, chairman of Scottish Homes, on 23 June.

Mr. Wallace: When the Under-Secretary of State spoke in the Scottish Grand Committee last week about homelessness, one remedy that he did not describe was building more houses. Given that homelessness is as much a rural as an urban problem, and that the amount


allocated by Scottish Homes to housing associations in the north of Scotland will scarcely allow for any new projects to be brought on stream in the next year, what steps do the Government intend to take to give more support to housing associations so that they can fulfil the important task of building and providing housing?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have good news for the hon. Member. Orkney housing association has been allocated £850,000 this year—the largest allocation since its formation. Moreover, programme expenditure for the north region is no less than £44 million for 1988–89. I fully expect the rural strategy now being worked out by Scottish Homes to be in place by May next year. That strategy will point the way to more houses being built in areas where they are most needed. We expect that in Scotland as a whole between 3,000 and 4,000 houses will be completed this year.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in terms of rural and urban housing, the Loreburn housing association has carried out exceptionally good work in Dumfries and Galloway? Will he do everything possible to approve its exciting new scheme at Nithsdale mills, even it if means the demolition of a Victorian mill?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can confirm that the performance of Loreburn housing association has been extremely impressive. Its application to pull down the building to which my hon. Friend refers is currently with Dumfries and Galloway regional council, which is the planning authority. The application will be considered this month. If it is approved, the decision will be notified to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State as the building is listed, but the matter will be processed as quickly as possible thereafter.

Community Charge

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland are on poll tax registers; and how many of them have not so far paid at least the first instalment.

Mr. Rifkind: It is estimated that almost 99 per cent. of the adult population have been registered. It will be some while yet before reliable information on payment levels becomes available from local authorities. The current indications are that local authorities are satisfied with the progress so far made in collecting community charges.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Secretary of State seriously telling us that the staff of 10,000 at the Scottish office are insufficient to make a dozen telephone calls to the regional and islands councils to obtain the figures needed for a full and accurate reply to a parliamentary question? Or is there, perhaps, a political reason for his refusal to reveal the whole truth about the number of non-payers? Does he admit that if it became public knowledge that several hundred thousand people in Scotland were refusing to pay the poll tax, more and more people would join the non-payment campaign, which is the only realistic way to defeat the poll tax and stop it being foisted on the people of Scotland by a discredited Government?

Mr. Rifkind: If there is a political reason, I must say that it is a very odd one. I understand that Strathclyde regional councillors have yet to be informed by their own

officials of the level of collection in the region. The hon. Gentleman never likes to admit that he is pursuing a lost cause. His views on this have been repudiated by his own party—and, indeed, by the general public, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and a large number of other Scottish organisations—but he can continue to whistle in the dark.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is it not disgraceful that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) should support a campaign which argues that people should not pay their lawful dues to society when the legislation has been passed by a democratically elected House of Commons? What do Labour Members think would happen if Conservatives took the same attitude when a Labour Government were in power? Is it not also outrageous that well-heeled Opposition Members should refuse to pay their dues to the community whose services they receive?

Mr. Rifkind: It is not unusual for either the hard Left of the Labour party or the SNP to give itself the right to decide which laws it should observe and which it should not.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Is the Secretary of State not disturbed by the increasing use of pinding and warrant sales as a method of collecting poll tax?

Mr. Rifkind: It is very much up to local authorities to decide which procedure they should apply. As the House well knows, major reforms have been made to the warrant sales system, leading to the removal of all the features of that system that were causing concern to both sides of the House. Those who are owed the community charge and have not received it are clearly entitled to use such methods as they think appropriate under the law.

NHS Reform

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received expressing support for his review of the National Health Service.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Most submissions on the White Paper "Working for Patients" have shown strong support for certain proposals and have questioned others.

Mr. Ross: That reply beggars belief. The Minister must concede that there is hardly anyone on whom he can call for support. According to a recent Gallup poll, not even the Conservative party supports what he is doing to the National Health Service. Is it not about time that he withdrew this nonsensical review—at least in respect of Scotland—and got down to serious discussions with people in the Health Service about trying to create a better service rather than trying to fragment it?

Mr. Forsyth: I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman. Even the British Medical Association supports our proposals for a medical audit, money following patients and resource management. As for the public and those who depend on the Health Service as a whole, there is widespread support for our measures to reduce waiting lists, to ensure that people are given appointments on which they can rely and that they see a consultant, to make it easier for patients to change doctors and to extend patient choice.
The opinion poll to which the hon. Gentleman referred represents a public view on the White Paper as presented by the BMA and the Government's opponents, which is a long way from any proposals that we have presented. If the hon. Gentleman has studied the poll and our proposals, he will know that the Government have no intention of privatising the National Health Service.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister acknowledge that there has been massive and united opposition to his proposals from general practitioners in my constituency, who are against the proposal to create a poorer and less effective National Health Service? When will he start to acknowledge that there is massive public disapproval of his plans, as well as professional disapproval? This is a democracy. When will the Minister stop dictating to the people and start to understand what they are saying and do something about it?

Mr. Forsyth: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a word with some of the GPs in Angus district. One GP who has come forward as a volunteer to run a pilot scheme —[Interruption.] Opposition Members should not mock. The BMA itself suggested that pilot schemes would be a good idea. That GP, who came into my office to volunteer as a result of representations by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), practises in Angus. He believes that his proposals will result in better services for the patients on his list, and we shall see if we are able to take them forward.

Mr. Frank Field: As health expenditure per person in Scotland is 25 per cent. higher than in England, can the Minister assure the House that, on average, Scottish citizens are 25 per cent. healthier than English citizens? If not, should he not spend his time making sure that his Department devises indices to answer that question rather than ramming through National Health Service reforms, since neither the Government nor anyone else can say whether they will improve or reduce health standards in Scotland, England or Wales?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. He is right to point out that health expenditure is 25 per cent. higher in Scotland than it is in England. He is also right to point out that health in Scotland is no better as a result. He should address his remarks to his own party, which seems to believe that the problems of the Health Service are entirely—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is a member of a party which is arguing that the only problems with the Health Service are due to inadequate resources. Yet he has pointed out that although Scotland has been provided with substantial additional resources, health in Scotland is not proportionately better. It is for those reasons that we put forward our White Paper proposals. I welcome the hon. Gentleman as an ally in what we are trying to do in the National Health Service.

Scottish Development Agency

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chief executive of the Scottish Development Agency; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Rifkind: I met the agency board, including the chief executive, on 22 May and discussed a range of issues of mutual interest.

Mr. McKelvey: Notwithstanding the reply that the Secretary of State gave to question No. I and also to this question, did he have any discussions with the chief executive about the shortfall of funds? Is he aware that in my constituency of Kilmarnock, small Scottish business men with good businesses and good workers are losing out on projects that could have received a grant because spending is ahead of schedule, either as a result of sheer efficiency on our part or because the weather in Scotland is mild at the moment and building work is further ahead than usual? If the Secretary of State could give more money to the Scottish Development Agency now so that those projects could be kept within the plan, he would dispel the fears of those small business men who are losing out and also defeat the wisecrackers who are going about the streets of Kilmarnock suggesting that he has backed the Wang horse.

Mr. Rifkind: I am delighted by the hon. Gentleman's comments. Any suggestion that the SDA is underfunded does not match the facts when one considers what has happened. Total provision for the agency in 1989–90 is £160 million, compared with £147 million last year. The fact that support is being sought for even more projects suggests that economic activity in Scotland is healthy. I have no doubt that the SDA, which has £160 million available to it this year, will be able to respond positively to a very large proportion of company requests which justify support.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, compared with the view of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey), we in the north-east of Scotland appreciate the work of the Scottish Development Agency and the funding and support that it provides both for major projects, such as Aberdeen Beyond 2000, and for rural projects, such as those to be found in Braemar in my constituency? May I have his assurance that the SDA, contrary to the way in which it acted in the past, will continue to take an interest in activities in areas outside the central belt of Scotland, such as the north-east?

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We have emphasised to the Scottish Development Agency that its remit is for the whole of Scotland and that the north-east in particular is entitled to its fair share of any resources that are available. Some of the criticism that one used to hear a few years ago about the concentration of SDA activity in one particular part of Scotland is now heard much less often. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is able to confirm that the SDA is supporting projects in his area.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: When the Secretary of State next meets the Scottish Development Agency, will he consider asking it to look into the structure of community businesses, which are developing well in Scotland but which need to be given a new legal status if they are to expand further? Will he also consider whether the SDA might have a role in providing venture capital for new businesses as there is still a gap in the market for venture capital, particularly for those who have ideas and energy but no collateral?

Mr. Rifkind: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman said. I shall be happy to ensure that his ideas are discussed with the SDA, to find out whether there is a gap in its ability to meet that requirement and perhaps it will comment on the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take time today to congratulate the director of the national galleries on resuming and restoring the galleries for such a small sum? Will he remind the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am no great expert on Scottish matters, but is this a matter for the SDA?

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the House that the Government have provided the funds to enable the work to be done through the SDA because of our economic policies. We have had a decade of regeneration in the arts in Scotland unrivalled by any previous Government.

Mr. Rifkind: I can certainly confirm to my hon. and learned Friend that the restoration and improvements to the national galleries have rightly received wide applause throughout Scotland. It was a remarkable achievement, whether or not the SDA was involved.

Dr. Godman: During his meeting with the chief executive of the SDA, did the Secretary of State establish the reasons for the decision to include three public houses and a betting shop within the boundaries of the Inverclyde enterprise zone? Is it not the case that the two local authorities will lose more than a bob or two over the next 10 years because of that gaff? Given the Secretary of State's ever-ready desire to berate Labour local authorities for their poor financial management, will he now give an assurance that the two councils concerned will not lose any money because of that gaff?

Mr. Rifkind: First, I understand that those particular sites were regarded as potential sites that could be used to attract new investment to Inverclyde. Secondly, it is highly unlikely that local authorities will lose out, because their revenue support grant takes into account their expected revenue. If that revenue goes down, there will be an enhancement of revenue support grant. Thirdly, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in expressing delight at the decision of Crusader to move 300 jobs from Reigate in Surrey to Inverclyde because of the Government's decision to create an enterprise zone there.

Unemployment

Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of unemployed in Scotland (a) in June 1983 and (b) at the present time.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Seasonally-adjusted unemployment in Scotland in June 1983 was 300,100, and the figure for May 1989 is 239,800. Unemployment in Scotland has now fallen for 25 months in succession, the longest and largest sustained fall on record.

Mr. Favell: Is it not clear that jobs are now returning to Scotland because the Government have failed to encourage the "the world owes us a free lunch" mentality encouraged by the Opposition, and have encouraged the

traditional Scottish virtues of hard work, industrial and commercial innovation and enterprise which have served Scotland, the United Kingdom, the British Commonwealth and the world during previous periods of prosperity? Is it not good to know that the ancient virtues are the best way to serve Scotland?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The civilian work force in Scotland grew by 66,000 last year. Although I am glad that unemployment is falling in the north of England, in the past year seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland fell faster than in the south-east of England.

Mr. Watson: Notwithstanding the Minister's self-satisfied response, does he accept that youth unemployment in Scotland, and in the city of Glasgow in particular, is at a record level? Five of the six wards which I represent in Glasgow, Central have youth unemployment in excess of 28 per cent. One has a horrendous youth unemployment figure of 45 per cent. Will the Minister say what hope he can hold out to school leavers in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening contribution to the proceedings of the House. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing many more contributions from him. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the youth training scheme operates extremely effectively in Glasgow. Last year, 82 per cent. of those who completed a YTS course in Glasgow obtained some form of employment over the following three months. Unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has fallen by 2,140 since January 1987.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Has my hon. Friend taken the trouble to make clear to people in Scotland the extent to which grants from the United Kingdom Treasury are made available, for instance in the development of tourism in Scotland, where, with a similar rate of unemployment —[Interruption.] May I wait until the interruptions have finished, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That may be a long time.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that this may not be welcome to the Labour party, but I will repeat the question as it was interrupted.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to put his question.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Has my hon. Friend made sure that people in Scotland realise the extent to which grants are available, for instance under the Development of Tourism Act 1969, in conditions of unemployment in Scotland, where they would not be available in the rest of the United Kingdom, including the south-west?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Regional assistance is applied evenhandedly across the United Kingdom. However, as a result of need in Scotland, 65 per cent. of our working population work in assisted areas, compared with 35 per cent. for the rest of the United Kingdom. Regional assistance has helped to regenerate the Scottish economy and create the new jobs to which I referred.

Community Charge

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the impact of the standard community charge in self-catering tourist flats.

Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of such representations.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that the border areas tourist authority which conducted a survey of 500 properties in the retail self-catering sector of tourism in the area, found that the owners of such properties are paying an additional £200 a year as a direct result of the standard community charge? Is it not slightly ludicrous that a unit containing 10 self-catering flats on one site is subject to the commercial rating system, whereas 10 separate units in different locations must pay 10 individual standard community charges? Will he consider changing the regulations so that all units are subject to commercial rates?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman should refer the increased costs faced by such organisations to regional and district councils in his area, because they have deliberately chosen to impose a standard charge as high as twice as much as is open to them. Had they imposed a multiplier of one instead of two, many of the problems faced by self-catering establishments would not have arisen.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Minister aware that not only is the tourist industry being seriously affected by this aspect of the legislation but that it is also causing serious financial hardship to organisations that work for the disabled? Is he aware that the Association of Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus, which was bequested two small properties, is paying standard community charge on them, thereby making it increasingly difficult for it to offer respite to the carers of disabled people?

Mr. Lang: Such a development would, indeed, be extremely regrettable. The standard community charge accounts for about 0·3 per cent. of total local authority revenue. The choice is open to them of imposing a multiplier of one instead of two, which would halve the burden faced by such organisations.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that this is a problem? The impact of the standard community charge on the provision of self-catering and other tourist accommodation cuts right across other Government schemes, such as farm diversification. Will he acknowledge that this problem requires a review, and will he undertake to instigate such a review?

Mr. Lang: As I have made clear on a number of occasions, we are constantly considering all aspects of the community charge legislation. Nevertheless, I urge my right hon. Friend to bring to the attention of his district and regional councils the fact that the solution lies largely in their own hands.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister consider the possibility that his bland refusal to offer any movement on a non-ideological point of common sense relating to the standard community charge accounts for the standing of his party in Scotland? Nobody believes the Minister when he says that the standard community charge is the

responsibility of local authorities. Everyone knows that the Scottish Office calculations for the poll tax were based on the assumption that a multiplier of two would be used. Will the Minister accept the commonsense solution and allow local authorities to vary the standard community charge according to the type of properties and the level of use?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion would take us back close to a property tax. The assumption made in the distribution of revenue support grant was in line with normal practice and carried no implications for, or recommendation on, the decisions by local authorities. Indeed, had the multiplier assumption been one instead of two, six of the nine regional authorities in Scotland would have had less revenue support grant, rather than more.

Unemployment

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of unemployment in Scotland in (a) January 1987 and (b) May 1989.

Mr. Lang: Seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland in January 1987 was 340,600; and the corresponding figure for May 1989 was over 100,000 lower at 239,800. Unemployment in Scotland now stands at its lowest level for eight years.

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent and encouraging reply. Does he agree that the Government's economic policies have helped to achieve that result? No doubt, that will cause distress to the Oppositon. Will my hon. Friend confirm that inward investment has contributed to that excellent result and that such investment would be strongly questioned by overseas companies should the Labour party ever have the chance to govern this country again?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right. We saw the Labour party's contribution to the inward investment effort when it helped drive Ford from Dundee.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister will know that high unemployment, especially among our young people, forces many young people to go to the London area. Is he aware of the posters at King's Cross advertising vacancies for waitresses and hostesses in busy West End clubs and saying that payment will be made daily? Surely, as long as the Government fail to consider unemployment in Scotland, our young people will be in moral danger.

Mr. Lang: It is certainly the case that different unemployment rates in different parts of the country attract people to move in different directions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out that Crusader Insurance recently decided to relocate from the south-east to the Inverclyde enterprise zone. That shows that market forces are working effectively within an integrated United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that unemployment in his constituency has fallen since January 1987 by 2,470.

Mr. Sillars: Will Scottish unemployment continue to go down over the next 12 months?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government never give forecasts, but, on the basis of what


has happened over the past 25 months, that is a reasonable expectation. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, unemployment has fallen by 1,685 over that period.

Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the attraction to Scotland of major inward investment projects, such as JVC, Digital, Compaq and Crusader Insurance. Is he aware that inward investment organisations in the north and south of England are complaining that everywhere they go in the world they are faced with Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Development Association—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is that?"]—sorry, the Scottish Development Agency? The success of the Scottish Office and the SDA has been widely commented on south of the border. Will my hon. Friend do us all a favour and not try quite so hard in the future?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to the inward investment successes of the Government and our agencies. It is true that the electronics industry in Scotland is of great value to the Scottish economy. It accounted for our single biggest export category when, in 1987, 26 per cent. of our exports, valued at £1·5 billion, were in that category. The one thing that would jeopardise our inward investment efforts would be the uncertainty created by tax-raising devolution.

Education

Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he now has any proposals to extend section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: As I indicated in the House on 20 June, we shall look again at the case for action in the light of the outcome of the review of the operation of section 43 in England and Wales by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Hogg: Does that not represent an astonishing about face, given the Minister's reply in the House on 7 June, when he said that there was no evidence in support of such a move? Does that mean that he does not know his own mind, or that he is coming under increasing pressure from Conservative Members, who owe no allegiance to Scottish higher education?

Mr. Forsyth: On 7 June, I said that there had been little evidence of disruption of free speech in Scotland. I also said that we would be prepared to legislate if necessary. That remains the position.

Mr. Dewar: I suppose that this is a hopeless request, but will the Minister now give a guarantee that he will stand firm against the rather brutal performance of his right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and some of his intellectual bovver boys behind him? Will he look at the evidence and advice of his own Department, and show some respect for Scottish universities by defying the Right-wing prejudices with which he is too often personally associated? Does he recall that when he was asked specifically by the right hon. Member for Chingford whether he was arguing that there was no problem in Scottish universities or whether he was saying that section 43 would, in any case, offer no safeguards, he replied that he was quite clear that he was saying both? Why is he now flirting with a review in this weasel way?

Mr. Forsyth: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman regards the preservation of freedom of speech in our universities as a Right-wing prejudice. I appreciate that the Left in this country has been associated with the denial of freedom of speech, but this is the first time I have heard a Front-Bench spokesman suggest that concern about freedom of speech is a Right-wing prejudice. Unlike many of his hon. Friends the hon. Gentleman was actually present for that debate. He made his position clear and he will have seen that the House was well attended. Hon. Members made a number of interruptions in the debate and, as a Minister, it is my role to take account of the views of the House.

School Leavers

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects school leavers in (a) Glasgow, Maryhill and (b) areas of similarly high unemployment to be able reasonably to anticipate finding a permanent, full-time job.

Mr. Lang: With the considerable fall in unemployment over the past two years, the buoyancy of Scottish industry and the projected decline in the number of young people, the employment prospects for school leavers are better than they have been for some time.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister realise that he will stand accused of amazing complacency by the people of Scotland when they consider his replies to questions on unemployment this afternoon? Has he noticed that of the 20 constituencies in Great Britain with the highest level of unemployment, no less than eight are in Glasgow? Will he tell us what the Government's present economic policies are doing for the people of Glasgow, including the school leavers who cannot get a job?

Mr. Lang: Glasgow undoubtedly continues to have very considerable unemployment problems, to which the Government are addressing great attention. Nevertheless, since January 1987, unemployment in Glasgow has fallen by 21,500, or by about 30 per cent. I would feel more guilty of complacency if it were not for the fact that Glasgow and Strathclyde have rejected the technology academy offered to them, which would considerably have advanced the prospects of young people in the area.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: If Scotland ever had the misfortune either to have an assembly or to be separated from the United Kingdom, does my hon. Friend take the view that we would have more employed and more inward investment, or less? Indeed, would we have more mistresses, or whatever was suggested earlier?

Mr. Lang: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend makes a useful point. Over the past six years, the Scottish Development Agency has invested no less than £166 million in Glasgow and that is helping to generate new enterprise in the area.

Mr. Worthington: Will the Minister comment on that successful Scottish firm, Hinari, which is based in Cumbernauld, which chose its name because it sounded Japanese? The founder has said:
Although our products are designed in Scotland most are made in the Far East, half coming from Japan. We wanted to let people know that our products are made in Japan".
What comment is that on the economic miracle?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will have to develop his points on another occasion. He has given us a tantalising glimpse of the point that he was trying to make. I am prepared to compliment Hinari, which is a good and effective company, as are many other companies in Scotland. The number of companies registered in Scotland has increased by over half in the 1980s. There has been an increase of 20,000 and an extra 66,000 people have entered self-employment in recent years. Those are signs of the growth of enterprise and of the spread of new companies in Scotland over that time.

Unemployment

Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed unemployment levels with the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rifkind: I have frequent contacts with the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland. Its most recent assessment, conveyed to me in a letter from the chairman of the Scottish Council, is of confidence in the continuing buoyancy of the Scottish economy.

Sir Hector Monro: I warmly welcome the fall of 100,000 in the number of people unemployed in the past two years and the fall from 13·6 to 9·6 per cent. What discussions has my right hon. and learned Friend had about Enterprise Scotland and about how the CBI and himself consider that there may be a further fall in the numbers of people unemployed?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, there is a great degree of interest in the proposal that was published in the Government's recent White Paper which proposed private sector-led local agencies. At the moment we are considering our response to the many constructive comments that have been made. I hope to report to the House in the near future because I have no doubt that the proposals will be relevant in dealing with the need to reduce unemployment further over the months and years to come.

Mr. McAllion: Will the Secretary of State explain why the Scottish Office has allowed the employment services division independently to launch a two-year pilot scheme called the "job interview guarantee scheme" in the Whitfield area of Dundee and in the Castlemilk area of Glasgow without consulting or even informing local Members of Parliament, local councils, local people and the local partnership groups which exist in those areas under the New Urban Life for Scotland policy? When will the Government stop doing things to the long-term unemployed and start doing things for and with the long-term unemployed?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman might be under a misapprehension. This matter is under consideration, but no decision has been reached.

Mr. Ingram: Given the importance of the new towns to the economic health of the Scottish economy, when the Secretary of State met the CBI, did he explain the reason for the inordinate and unacceptable delay in the publication of the White Paper on the future of the new towns?

Mr. Rifkind: There is no delay in that matter. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the well-being of the new

towns, he must be of the view that we should bring our proposals forward only when we are in a position to do so. These are important matters. The winding up of the various new town corporations is a long-term reform of great significance to all those who live in the new towns. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wishes us to rush such matters before we have reached appropriate conclusions.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My right hon. and learned Friend and his Scottish Office colleagues have been rightly proud this afternoon when stating how much help they have managed to give to Scotland. In an earlier supplementary question, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that expenditure on health in Scotland was 25 per cent. more per head of population than it is in England. If that is so in relation to industry and employment also, would my right hon. and learned Friend be surprised if and many of my colleagues who represent English constituencies felt that we were being discriminated against?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not think that it is true in the spheres of industry and employment. However, it is certainly the case that throughout the United Kingdom the Government spend more on those areas which have higher levels of unemployment. That is what regional policy is about, whether it is regional policy implemented in England, Scotland or Wales.

Mr. McLeish: Does the Secretary of State accept that nearly 240,000 Scots were unemployed in May 1989 and that that figure is still 70 per cent. higher than the figure of 140,000 for May 1979? Clearly, there has not been a stunning 10-year success story in reducing unemployment. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the regime of high interest rates and cuts in regional aid is having a crippling effect on small and medium-sized businesses in Scotland? Treasury figures suggest that Scottish companies are facing a bill of £250 million in increased borrowing costs. Finally, why does the Secretary of State have to go to Wales to attack Thatcherism? Why does he not stand up in the Cabinet and urge lower interest rates, lower inflation and a sensible regional aid package?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that his views are not shared by Scottish industry. That is not surprising because manufacturing output in Scotland grew by more than 7 per cent. in 1988—the fastest rate of growth since 1973. The hon. Gentleman might also like to reflect on articles by the Fraser of Allander Institute which point to the fact that the Labour party's proposals for constitutional change would cause considerable damage to the Scottish economy.

NHS Reform

Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what interest has been demonstrated by general practitioners in Tayside about the proposals in the White Paper covering general practitioner involvement in self-governing hospitals and for budgetary control of general practitioners' practices.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Interest has been expressed in developing a self-governing hospital and in GP practice


budgets. I welcome this wish to explore the opportunities offered by the White Paper and I have asked officials to pursue this with those concerned.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that since the interest was shown in Forfar, further interest has been shown in Blairgowrie and elsewhere in my constituency? Is he also aware that a number of local GPs are interested in setting up their own contracts and they have been in touch with me—[Interruption.] This is important and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can hear me—about the Government imposing the renegotiated contract of service for GPs because they believe that that is in the best interests of patients? That point has been made by several GPs in my area.

Mr. Forsyth: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is so active in securing the best interests of his constituents in terms of primary care services. I am also delighted by the response that he referred to from GPs in his constituency. With regard to the GPs' contract, it is a matter of great regret that the conference did not support the position of the national negotiators on behalf of the GPs and the contract, which would have produced a fair deal for GPs and would have ensured that those GPs who provided preventive services were properly rewarded.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Why is the Minister in favour of self-government for hospitals, but not in favour of self-government for Scotland?

Mr. Forsyth: On the connection between devolution and the interests of the Health Service, the hon. and learned Gentleman and his party would do well to explain how the additional 25 per cent. which is spent on health care would be funded on the basis of his proposals which would ultimately lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. The hon. and learned Gentleman should appreciate that self-governing hospitals will remain part of the National Health Service while a Scottish assembly would prevent Scotland from remaining part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Galbraith: When does the Minister expect to be able to name the first hospital in Scotland to opt out of its health board? Does he agree that that hospital will be acting against the wishes of its staff? Will the Minister take this opportunity to condemn the intimidation of hospital staff in Scotland by the managers who are hoping to get one hospital to opt out? Does he agree that the intimidation and the delay in announcing the name of the hospital reflects the fact that the proposals for hospitals to opt out have absolutely no support anywhere in Scotland?

Mr. Forsyth: It is wholly irresponsible for an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to talk about the intimidation of staff by management in the Health Service particularly when we have not asked health boards in Scotland to give an indication of hospitals that are interested in self-governing status. Lest I disappoint the hon. Gentleman, I can assure him that very shortly we will be issuing our proposals on self-governing hospitals and inviting general managers to put forward cases. The process of ensuring effective delivery of health care in Scotland is not helped by the kind of language from the hon. Gentleman that we have grown used to.

Adam Smith Institute

Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent communications he has had with Mr. Douglas Mason and the Adam Smith Institute; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rifkind: I have had a number of contacts with Mr. Mason and with the Adam Smith Institute. I have always found them stimulating and I hope that they will continue.

Mr. Galloway: In any of those contacts was the Secretary of State spared Mr. Douglas Mason's bizarre and unbelievable idea that Hong Kong should be towed, lock, stock and barrel and relocated off the west coast of Scotland, on one of the western isles? As I listened to the radio interview, I thought that the man must be barking mad, until I realised that it was the same Douglas Mason who was the architect of the poll tax. Will the Secretary of State see whether there is a rocky outcrop somewhere on the edge of our territorial waters where Mr. Douglas Mason, the Adam Smith Institute and the trash Thatcherite ideas, which have no support in Scotland, might be relocated?

Mr. Rifkind: I said that I always found Mr. Mason's views stimulating. I did not say that I always agreed with them.

Nurses (Regrading)

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the regrading of night nursing staff.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and from members of the nursing profession. The new grading structure was agreed with the professional bodies and trade unions representing nurses, and it means that nurses are now rewarded for what they actually do. Nurses' pay has reached its highest ever level in real terms and nurses in clinical practice have better career prospects than ever before.

Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister recognise that, nevertheless, there is great resentment and a great loss of morale among nursing staff, particularly among those who are designated night duty, and that the grading appeals system does not deal with that? Does he accept that the management and unions agreed the new grading structure without consulting nurses and that they should now be consulted with a view to changing the grading to ensure that morale is restored?

Mr. Forsyth: If doctors' and nurses' representatives, speaking on behalf of their professions, are to be criticised according to the agreements that they reach, it will make the Government's position extremely difficult. Night staff are treated on exactly the same basis as day staff. All clinical nursing posts are graded according to job content. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. All clinical nursing posts are graded according to job content and the level of responsibility carried. Night staff must meet the same criteria as day staff to qualify for the higher grades available, and there is nothing unfair in that.
In addition, night staff also qualify for special duty payments, which add 30 per cent. to the hourly rate for hours worked between 8 pm and 6 am, and 60 per cent. For

hours worked on Sundays or on public holidays. All of that is on a basis agreed by the staff representatives and the employers.

Hong Kong

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about Hong Kong, which I visited from 2 to 4 July.
I held extensive discussions with members of the Executive and Legislative Councils, with professional people, entrepreneurs, students and others.
There can be no doubt that the appalling events in Peking have badly shaken confidence in Hong Kong. It is of the first importance that the Chinese Government take early, tangible and sustained action to begin restoring confidence in China's intentions towards Hong Kong. We shall be pressing them strongly on this.
There has been understandable pressure on this country to grant a right of abode to all British passport holders in Hong Kong. I had to explain that this House would not support an indefinite and open-ended commitment of that kind. It would test our capacity in all kinds of areas—housing, employment, transport, inner-city services—on an unprecedented scale. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs reached a similar conclusion. I was, however, able to assure the people of Hong Kong that we can and will take action in a number of matters.
First, on the question of nationality, we want to enhance people's confidence to remain. We are working urgently on a scheme which will make some provision for people in both the private and public sectors on the basis not simply of connections with Britain but the value of service to Hong Kong.
Secondly, at the European Council in Madrid we alerted our Community partners to Hong Kong's problems. I am also in direct touch with the other countries which will attend next week's economic summit in Paris. We shall continue there and elsewhere to mobilise the support of the international community.
Thirdly, I was able to confirm as common ground that the Joint Declaration, with its prospect of the greatest possible autonomy, remains the best foundation for Hong Kong's future. We have identified a number of ways in which Hong Kong's traditions of freedom can be further protected. In particular, there is scope for reviewing the rate of progress towards representative government. In this, the wishes of the people of Hong Kong will continue to be fundamental to our approach.
We favour a Bill of Rights entrenching essential freedoms. The Hong Kong Government are announcing today that they will introduce such a Bill as soon as possible. It will form part of the existing law and be able to continue after the transfer of sovereignty.
We shall take up with the Chinese Government two matters of special concern—article 18 of the draft Basic Law, which could enable the central Government in Peking to declare a state of emergency in Hong Kong after 1997 and, even more important, the question of the stationing in Hong Kong of Chinese military forces.
Events in China have overshadowed Hong Kong's most immediate practical problem—how to cope with the 48,000 boat people who have found shelter there. I visited two of the camps housing boat people and saw the screening of new arrivals now being conducted under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
The Hong Kong Government and people have dealt magnificently with an appalling problem, but Hong Kong is being overwhelmed by the sheer weight of numbers. The vast majority of those reaching Hong Kong are not political refugees. They have no hope of being accepted for resettlement anywhere else in the world. Hong Kong cannot offer them a home or a livelihood.
At the recent conference in Geneva, resettlement pledges are made for all those who qualify as refugees. The report of the Select Committee recognised that it is intolerable for those who do not qualify as refugees to have to spend years in camps. Their only future lies back home. I have discussed this problem with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister both in Geneva and in London. Official talks are continuing. I am hopeful that we will be able to find a solution which enables boat people to return to Vietnam in safety and dignity.
Hong Kong's predicament reflects the facts of its history and geography. Those are inescapable, but, in approving the joint declaration, the House undertook to make the best possible provision for Hong Kong after 1997. We shall pursue the measures I have outlined with vigour as part of that wider and unchanged commitment.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: We welcome back the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary—Typhoon Geoffrey—after his eventful visit to Hong Kong. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kaufman: We trust that some of his experiences there will cause him to value all the more the balanced, restrained and positive approach to all subjects by Her Majesty's Opposition in the House. On the other hand, he will equally have learnt that the people of Hong Kong are capable of accustoming themselves speedily to democratic political activity. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said so little on that crucial issue. We trust that the Government will lose no time in making clear their acceptance of the Select Committee recommendation that 50 per cent. of the Legislative Council should be elected in 1991, with full democracy in 1995. We also support the Select Committee's advocacy of an elected Chief Executive, although we believe that he or she should be directly elected from the start.
I am glad to hear of the speedy introduction in Hong Kong of a Bill of Rights. People in Hong Kong asked for that when I was there, and no doubt they made the same demand of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
We hope that discussions on the Basic Law will resume quickly. While concerned that there should be no attempt on either side to unravel the Joint Declaration, which, if it is abided by, represents the best prospects for Hong Kong's future, it would be valuable if assurances could be obtained of firm Chinese adherence to the declaration and, if at all possible, of agreements by China to keep the People's Liberation Army out of Hong Kong.
The Opposition believe that it would not be right to offer any commitment to Hong Kong British dependent territory passport holders on the right of entry into the United Kingdom or the right of abode here. Others with an existing right of entry to the United Kingdom, which the Government refuse to honour—such as the dependants mentioned yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond)—have a much more specific and immediate claim. If there


are Crown servants in Hong Kong, at whatever level, who might feel or find themselves at risk as transfer to China approaches, of course it would be right for the Home Secretary to consider using his discretion under the Immigration Act 1971 in their favour on an individual basis. I am sure that this Home Secretary or his Labour successor would do so.
In the light of the scheme that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says he is considering, I state clearly that the Opposition are against the creation of special favoured categories based on status or affluence. I agree with yesterday's statement by Dame Lydia Dunn that the creation of such categories would be divisive and difficult to defend. I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if such categories are created a Labour Government would not necessarily be bound by them.
We believe that international action should be invoked to reassure Hong Kong citizens. I welcomed the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance that this issue will be raised at the forthcoming Paris economic summit. I believe that it should be discussed in detail at the Commonwealth conference at Kuala Lumpur in the autumn and at the European Community Paris summit in December.
We believe that the United States has a special responsibility towards the Vietnamese boat people, whose plight stems directly from the consequences of the Vietnam war. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, like myself, had the unforgettable experience of visiting the boat people in their detention centres. I hope that any solution to this difficult problem will be based only on arrangements that recognise and uphold the human rights of those unhappy migrants, whether refugees or not.
While it would be wrong to take the view that China must be permanently excluded from the international community, I must make it clear that we believe that it would be absolutely wrong, after an indecent interval, somehow to pretend that the Peking massacres never happened. It would be a betrayal of the murdered thousands and the people of Hong Kong were we to return to business as usual with the guilty men of the forbidden city.
Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that there will be no Government support for the British-China Expo '89 due to be held in Peking in November or the major trade missions planning to go to China later this year, one of which boasts that it will be meeting Li Peng. We are told that the Department of Trade and Industry will be offering support to the participants in the trade missions and that official facilities will be drawn upon to the full. I hope that that offer will be withdrawn, as it would be unacceptable in the light of what has taken place in Peking.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that there is no question of anything but rejection of Peking's reported order from Britain of 170 military vehicles?
We urge the Government to stand up for the basic rights of the people of Hong Kong and to stand up against the reversion to barbarism in China, exemplified by the massacres and executions. As long as they do so, they shall have the support of the Opposition.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for

focusing, although not sequentially, on the extremely important and difficult aspects to which we must address ourselves.
Nobody could condemn more strongly than myself, except perhaps the people of Hong Kong, the events that took place in Peking just over a month ago. Yet it is the people of Hong Kong who are most concerned to secure from this House the right balance of response to those intolerable events in the light of the significant responsibility of China for their future. That is why I noticed with sympathy the right hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of continuing now to build upon the Joint Declaration, to recognise that there should be no attempt to unravel that and to proceed further to examine particular aspects of Basic Law. Those propositions that he urged upon me necessarily involve engagement with the people now in charge in China.
The people of Hong Kong are also concerned to secure the least possible damage to their economic vitality as a result of what has happened in China, because China is their largest trading partner and vice versa. Although I take seriously—as does the House, I am sure—the right hon. Gentleman's point about the way in which we deal with the present Administration in China, we must also not neglect the need to promote in every way we can the interests of the people of Hong Kong.
I noticed with interest what the right hon. Gentleman said about the future of democratic arrangements in Hong Kong. The people to whom I spoke there are, of course, conscious of the recommendations of the Select Committee in that respect. Frankly, they have not yet had time to address themselves to the implications for their own 24 May recommendations, which fell short of those put forward by the Select Committee. They emphasised that they would need further time to consider that, and that is why I emphasised that we must pay attention to their conclusions.
The Select Committee said:
we also believe even more strongly that Hong Kong people must be allowed to decide on their own system of government before 1997 as well as after 1997.
Therefore, that must be the guide.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the announcement being made in Hong Kong today, and confirmed in this House, about the intention to implement a Bill of Rights as soon as possible. I am also grateful to him for the reminder, although I need no reminding, of the need for the Home Secretary to pay special attention and exercise discretion to Crown servants and others whose occupations may put them at risk or in jeopardy.
The right hon. Gentleman made two further observations which, 1 confess, I find it a little difficult to reconcile. He confirmed that there should be no automatic conferment of a right of abode to BDTC passport holders, which is a point supported by the Select Committee. At the same time, he was apprehensive about the consequences of having specially favoured categories. If by that he means a set of narrow categorised propositions, I understand his point. However, the Select Committee, and many of those to whom I spoke in Hong Kong, would like attention to be paid—even if not to the extent urged by them—to the role that can be played by assuring people in the public and private sectors, and more widely, to encourage them to


maintain their position in the Hong Kong economy. That is a matter to which many people attach a great deal of importance.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of the extent to which the United States should accept its fair share of responsibility for the Vietnamese boat people. The United States representative at the Geneva conference, Mr. Eagleburger, said:
Those who flee clandestinely and cannot establish a well founded fear of persecution must understand that such flight no longer leads to resettlement. Such persons will face an indefinite stay in a holding camp.
He continued:
It is important for those thinking of fleeing the former North Vietnam to realise that most will fail to qualify as refugees and will therefore not be eligible for resettlement.
But he stopped there, and, in our judgment, that is the wrong place at which to stop. If they are to be categorised in the way in which the United States and others have done, as not entitled to treatment as refugees, it must be right to try as we are doing, to secure a method for them to return to a secure future in their homeland.

Mr. David Howell: It is obvious, and has been for a long time, that it would be completely impractical for Britain to provide a right of abode for 3·25 million or many more Hong Kong people—a point which my right hon. and learned Friend has been making with great patience and courage in Hong Kong these past few days. Therefore, does he not share with me some regret that an orchestrated and expensive new campaign is yet again being mounted in Hong Kong and London to hammer home this single unattainable point?
Does not that distract the people of Hong Kong from concentrating on the many more positive possibilities which are now opening up for the future prosperity of Hong Kong, including persuading the international community to underwrite assurances for the future security of Hong Kong and providing passports for certain hard working key personnel to stay in Hong Kong. Contrary to the views of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), those people are not the elite or the rich, but those who are most dedicated and vital to maintain the administration of the territory in the coming years.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his observations and for the work of the Select Committee, over which he presided. He was quite right to draw attention, as he did in the Committee's report, to these two distinct factors: first, the importance of seeking the widest possible international assurances against an eventuality which we all hope will never happen; and secondly, as the Committee said, an immediate need to provide assurances to those people whose presence in Hong Kong, by reason of their skills and qualifications in both the public and private sectors, is vital to its continued prosperity. I hope that those who may be contemplating a sadly distracting campaign, of the kind to which my right hon. Friend referred, will think again about the wisdom of doing so.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: May I first welcome the Foreign Secretary's commitment to a Bill of Rights, and secondly, may I welcome the fact of his visit to Hong Kong? It clearly would have been much worse if he had not gone, but how much better it would have been if he had not gone with an empty hand and a closed mind. Surely his

total failure to reassure anyone in Hong Kong, from the most senior expatriate downwards, cannot but have the effect of undermining the credibility of our administration in Hong Kong, of accelerating the flight of capital and brains from the colony and of placing in jeopardy our long-term strategic interests in the entire area.
I ask the Government now if they will study the interesting report by Professor Bernard Corry, which outlines the economic benefits to Britain of honouring the right of abode, and I ask them for a response to it. Surely that is a much more rational way of approaching the delicate question of nationality than the sort of scaremongering that we have heard from the Government and from the Labour party.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman is not very perceptive in his observations: he denounced my visit for having been undertaken with an empty hand, having immediately preceded that by congratulating me on the firm commitment to the Bill of Rights, which was one of several things on which I was able to give some assurance to the people of Hong Kong. I have dealt with the others in my statement.
If the right hon. Gentleman studies the Corry report, he will find that it deals separately with the economic aspect and that, in a very qualified judgment, it states:
The feasibility of such a large migration therefore seems to be shown from an economic point of view".
It goes on to deal with what it calls management and logistical issues and clearly says that many of the problems that arise are exactly the same as those that I identified in my statement. The right hon. Gentleman would be wrong to conclude that the report offers any sort of support for his proposition, which is, on the whole, rejected on both sides of the House.

Sir Peter Blaker: Although the whole House understands the anxieties of the people of Hong Kong, may I add my voice to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and say that it is perfectly clear to almost every Member of the House that Parliament would never pass the legislation necessary to give the right of abode to more than 3 million citizens of Hong Kong? I am sure that I speak for many friends of Hong Kong in the House when I ask whether it is not time, therefore, for the leaders of Hong Kong to study the alternative thoughts of my right hon. and learned Friend about an international operation to deal with the issue of abode, about how to push forward the Joint Declaration and obtain a good Basic Law, and about how to formulate a Bill of Rights—which, I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, is an important proposal?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's support in that respect. I think that he should not respond too unsympathetically to the position of the leaders of the people of Hong Kong. He will understand as well as anyone the impact of the shock of the past month on the attitude of those in the territory. He will also join me in acknowledging that they have already shown themselves capable of responding in many respects to the need for leadership which their people are expressing. I hope that they will respond—I have some confidence that they may—to the kind of advice that my right hon. Friend has given them. It is important that they should


understand that the advice on these issues coming from this House is fully appreciative of the immense difficulty of their present position in Hong Kong.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Whatever the validity of the treaty made long ago with a very different regime about the territory of Hong Kong, does the Foreign Secretary agree that we must at all costs uphold the right of self-determination of the people who now live there? Should not that right be emphasised in any negotiations with the Chinese Government?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right of self-determination, in the sense in which it can sometimes be expressed, cannot be applied in anything like the traditional sense to the territory and people of Hong Kong, because of the extent to which their position depends on a lease that runs out in 1997; but that does not undermine the importance of paying the utmost respect, as far as it is possible to do so, to the wishes of the people of Hong Kong. That is why we consulted them so closely in the evolution of the Joint Declaration, why we tried to secure their support for it, and why I now attach the greatest importance to the fact that, in this House and in Hong Kong, the Joint Declaration that we achieved is regarded by people on all sides as the best common ground on which to build for the future.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Is not one of the most important things that the Select Committee report reveals about the right of abode the fact that flexibility about those who could qualify to be British dependent territory citizens would mean that more than 5 million would qualify? That figure puts the problem into perspective. Given that background, does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that now is not the time to run a campaign through advertising, but a time for quiet reflection? Would not an early debate on the Select Committee's report send out a clear signal from the House that would be valuable for Hong Kong and the world?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I welcome my hon. Friend's first point. His second point is also important. It has been heard by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and will no doubt be taken into account in his preparation of future business.

Mr. Peter Shore: There are no easy answers to the anxieties and problems of the people of Hong Kong, but one important element, as the Foreign Secretary has already recognised, is the status of representative government in Hong Kong before the 1997 deadline. With that in mind, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it plain that the ascertained wishes of the people of Hong Kong will be what determine the timetable of the advance towards full democracy, rather than apprehensions about the reactions of the Chinese Government?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support generally for our approach to this matter. I take note of the important point that he makes. In my answers, I have tried to say that the actual shape of the representative institutions that are appropriate to emerge between now and 1997 is not a question on which opinion in Hong Kong has yet focused

with as much care and precision as people there would like. They would want to take account not only of the generally recognised need for faster progress, but of the need to secure stability into the future. Once they have formulated their views in that respect, Her Majesty's Government will be paying direct attention to what they have to say. It is already clear from what I have learnt this week that the arrangements to come into place in 1991 will need review in any event. That is quite apart from what may be necessary for the longer-term shape of the institutions.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Is not the best guarantee for Hong Kong people not to clamour to get out of Hong Kong, but rather to stay in Hong Kong, to develop and entrench their democracy, and to make Hong Kong the success that it undoubtedly can be? That success is the best guarantee, and the only long-term guarantee, of Hong Kong's future.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in that respect. I underline the extent to which the future pattern in respect of the matters about which he is talking depends crucially on the need for the Chinese Government to recognise the great damage that has been done to confidence in Hong Kong by the dreadful events of a month ago, and for them to take early and sustained action to begin to repair that damage.

Dr. David Owen: While the Foreign Secretary is right to concentrate on the central importance of improved relations with China, the events in Tiananmen square will remain indelible. At the economic summit, will he attempt to get the other six nations to help China to remain on course for economic reform, but also tie it in to changes in the Basic Law and make it see the interrelationship of economic reform in China with a peaceful and sensible transition in 1997 in Hong Kong?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I accept the point put by the right hon. Gentleman, and have already been in direct communication with the Governments who will be represented at the economic summit next week. I have drawn their attention to the central economic point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. We need to leave those in China in no doubt of our abhorrence of what took place a month ago, but nevertheless we must refrain from action that can sever all links between it and the prospects of economic reform. That is a difficult road to strike, but it is the position precisely endorsed, as the right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten, by the Madrid summit only a week ago. This is the prudent position. It is also important to secure the widest possible support for the measures advocated on both sides of the House on the Basic Law.

Dr. John Marek: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the solution to the problem of the Vietnamese boat people will be found when the Vietnamese realise that they have a stake in their country and wish to live in it? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will use his good offices to ensure that the necessary international agreements are obtained, Vietnam can be incorporated and reintegrated into the world community as a developing nation, and one that desperately needs substantial development aid—much of it from this country. If the Foreign Secreary agrees, what timetable can he suggest for those events?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that it is generally recognised that, if Vietnam is to join the ranks of those nations that might expect development aid, it will be necessary for her not only to begin taking effective action to receive her own people back into their country, but to secure the withdrawal of her army of occupation from Cambodia.

Mr. George Galloway: Give it back to Pol Pot.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House knows that the world will insist that, if Vietnamese troops withdraw from Cambodia, it must be on condition that Pol Pot and his cronies do not return to play any part there.
Another feature of the statements of Vietnamese Government spokesmen that is becoming increasingly clear is their recognition that the worst blight that they must remove from their own economy is the blight of Socialism, which produced the current disaster.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his courageous visit to Hong Kong, and on the emphasis that he has placed on the fact that the best hope for the future of the people of Hong Kong resides in a stable and prosperous Hong Kong? Will he take action to implement the recommendations of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs' report on the establishment of a constitutional court to sit in Hong Kong, interpreting in accordance with the traditional principles of British law rather than the political principles of the People's National Congress? If there is no confidence in the stability of the legal system, the future confidence of Hong Kong itself will not endure for long.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his support. I have noticed, as have others, the Select Committee's recommendation of a re-examination of article 157 of the Basic Law and the specific proposal for a joint constitutional court. It is too early to reach a conclusion on that. It would, I think, be unrealistic to expect the sovereign authority of the People's Republic to divorce itself entirely from the constitutional process at the last resort, but the further the matter can be taken along the lines advocated by my hon. and learned Friend the better.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that if all of us here were Chinese in Hong Kong, none of us would be as sanguine about our future as various hon. Members have been this afternoon? Is he aware that the reason why people are anxious to maintain the pressure for the right of abode is that everyone in his right mind knows full well that, in the period after 1997 when China resumes full sovereignty over Hong Kong, any agreements that he secures will not be worth the paper that they are written on if China decides to apply its sovereignty in the murderous fashion that we saw in Peking last month?
Let me ask the Foreign Secretary a final question: if the people in Hong Kong were white, would he take the same view that he has taken today?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am dismayed that the hon. Gentleman should descend so far as to make that last point, which is entirely unworthy of him and of the argument.
The assessment made by members of the Select Committee, and by many other Members of the House, rested on the sheer scale of the problem. The numbers involved could be well beyond 3·25 million—perhaps 4 or 5 million. The hon. Gentleman's other point has been manifest to most of us for very much longer than it seems to have been to him. The future of Hong Kong cannot be separated from that of China—the world's largest Communist country, on the very corner of which the people of Hong Kong have established a magnificent society. It is for that reason that we have all been working as hard as we have been—not with any undue optimism or sanguinity, but to achieve the best possible result for Hong Kong, as the House would wish.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that one of the results of his visit has been to reassure the people of Hong Kong that Britain has not turned its back on their future? His visit will have reassured them that their future lies at the very forefront of his thinking and the thinking of all hon. Members. Does my right hon. and learned Friend also accept that what is most urgently needed in Hong Kong is restoration of confidence in the future? As he said, the future lies in Hong Kong's relationship with China. When, therefore, does my right hon. and learned Friend think that it might he prudent to begin again the urgent discussions that are necessary if Britain, China and the international community are to provide a basis for the re-growth and rebirth of confidence in Hong Kong's future?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first observation. Although I recognised that a lot of the message that I had to take to Hong Kong was bound to be seen as unwelcome, I was grateful for the fact that some of the most outspoken critics of views expressed in this House were the most outspoken in their thanks to me for having gone to Hong Kong. I am sure that it was right to take the opportunity to carry this dialogue forward. I certainly derived benefit from what they had to tell me.
As for my hon. Friend's second point, he is absolutely right that we need to promote the re-creation of confidence, but the Government of China have a leading part to play in that. I am not yet able to say when we can begin contacts of the various kinds that will be necessary—whether in the Joint Liaison Group, or in the Basic Law drafting committee, or more directly than that. It is important to achieve headway in that direction in a way that is compatible with all the other considerations that the House has in mind.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that friends of the Chinese people are appalled and saddened by the recent tragedy? However, there is no point, as some people have suggested, in Britain helping the people of Hong Kong in the distant future, if a disaster occurs. A disaster has already occurred. When the Chinese shot unarmed students in Peking, they shot the confidence of the people of Hong Kong. What is required now is the restoration of hope and confidence—hope by maintaining a dialogue with China and confidence not simply by alerting foreign countries, as the Foreign Secretary said, but by seeking immediate international guarantees of sanctuary for the people of Hong Kong, with Britain playing a leading role.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his advice. I know that he has played a leading part in establishing bilateral organisations between ourselves and the people of China, not least those connected with disability. He understands very well the basis of respect between the two peoples, which should form the basis of our relations. He is quite right to say that what happened in Tiananmen square did grave damage to many of those relationships. He is also right to urge the necessity for dialogue of the right kind with the people and the Government of China, along the lines that he suggests.
As for confidence, there, too, we shall certainly seek to do all that we can to promote confidence by dealing with the other nations that are of most importance, although it will be exceedingly difficult to translate that into precise numbers and timed guarantees.

Mr. Jim Lester: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that the prospect of mandatory repatriation for the Vietnamese boat people is a very serious step? For many of them, particularly those in Da Nang province, his statement that their interests would best be served by staying at home means a return to abject poverty caused by war, the policies of their own Government and also natural disasters such as typhoons and other serious catastrophes which make their lives intolerable? If we are considering mandatory repatriation, is it not time to follow the advice of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in its 1986 report, which was to start to plan internationally how best to restore Vietnam to the family of south-east Asian nations and therefore give the people who are being forced back to Vietnam some prospect of a better standard of living than the one they have left?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I well understand my hon. Friend's long-term interest in the future of the people and country of Vietnam. I sympathise with the force of his point. It is encouraging to have the reluctant acceptance of the Select Committee that the logical consequence of a screening programme is the repatriation of those who have been screened out. It is important for us to couple that with every encouragement that we can give towards economic reform in Vietnam. As I have said already, it has to be coupled with the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia under terms well understood by the international community, and with a willingness to accept the people who are on their way back to their native land. Against that background, it is right to encourage Britain and the international community to look in the direction of the commencement of development aid.

Mr. James Lamond: Now that we have clearly established that the moral responsibility of the Government, Parliament and the people of Britain to the people of Hong Kong extends no further than doing what will cause us least discomfort, should we not drop the pretence that there is anything honourable about our stance? Should not the Foreign Secretary feel a little abashed about having to dress up his statement with proposals about extending democracy in Hong Kong and a Bill of Rights? He must recall, as I do, the many debates in the House over decades, when various propositions by Back-Bench Members were rejected out of hand, mainly on the basis that to extend democracy to Hong Kong would offend the Government of the Chinese

People's Republic? Surely the Foreign Secretary is not suggesting for a moment that those proposals will help the people of Hong Kong in their present distress.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman seems at odds with most other right hon. and hon. Members, as everyone has welcomed the measures that we have supported in my statement earlier today. He will recollect that the history of Hong Kong has always been a matter of special interest and has been so treated from both Front Benches.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to have regard for the following business today, which is an Opposition day, and for the fact that we may be returning to this matter later. I shall take two more questions from each side.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Was my right hon. and learned Friend aware of any moves now in Hong Kong towards the realisation that the greatest test of leadership for those who represent the people of Hong Kong is facing up to the need to build up Hong Kong as a successful and stable province economically and socially, so that beyond 1997 they have the best chance of preserving two systems in one country? Was he able to reassure them that the Government will do all they can to help that process towards democracy—for example, by issuing a Green Paper on electoral law as the Select Committee proposed? Finally, will he reinforce his clear statement that he will do all he can with the Government in China to stress that military forces should not be based in Hong Kong beyond 1997, particularly on HMS Tamar?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I certainly shall not neglect the importance of my hon. Friend's last point. In regard to a Green Paper on electoral reform, he will understand that all those matters are essentially for consideration and management by the Government of Hong Kong. I know from my discussions with them this week that they will be addressing themselves to that part of the agenda shortly, having felt it necessary to address other matters in the immediate aftermath of the shocking events of a month ago. I can certainly assure him that those in the leadership of the people and territory of Hong Kong are immensely aware of the importance of building up confidence in the territory in the years between now and 1997, and beyond. One of the most heartening features of the immense complexities and difficulties of this case is the quality, dedication, energy and skill of those who are currently leading the people of Hong Kong.

Mr. David Winnick: While one understands the perfectly justified feelings of concern in Hong Kong, feelings that we would share if we were living in Hong Kong, is it not in the overall economic interests of China that the agreement signed between Britain and China should be firmly adhered to from 1997? Despite the horrors of what has occurred in China recently, is it not likely that China has every intention of honouring that agreement?
But does not the Secretary of State agree that, first and foremost, China should show that it understands our revulsion at what occurred by ending its present policy of repression and terror? How confident is the Secretary of State that the Chinese leadership will agree that Chinese troops should not be stationed in Hong Kong after 1997?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I address myself to the general point made by the hon. Gentleman, because I cannot make any predictions about the response of the Chinese Government on that or any other point at this stage. It is clear, as a matter of logic and common sense, that it is massively in the interests of China for the Joint Declaration to be upheld and for Hong Kong's stability and prosperity to be maintained. That is the basis on which the declaration was entered into, and the basis on which we have commended its credibility, not only in Hong Kong but around the world. The actions taken by the Chinese Government a month ago plainly were not in the interests of China, its Government, its people or anyone else. Those actions, which plainly flew so much in the face of justice and common sense, did much to damage present confidence. I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's advice about the need to press China as strongly as we can to return to a true recognition of its interests in upholding the agreement.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Would my right hon. and learned Friend accept that a number of hon. Members were deeply concerned when we transferred the sovereignty of Hong Kong in 1984, and therefore affected the future of its people, without any meaningful discussions with them? Will he take seriously the recommendations of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which were reinforced by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who said that the one way of re-establishing confidence in Hong Kong and guaranteeing its future is to implement a meaningful system of democracy, involving the franchise for all the people of Hong Kong, before the transfer of sovereignty in 1997?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the first point, my hon. Friend may not have observed the immense attention that we paid

at the time, in consultation after consultation with the people and the leaders of Hong Kong as well as hon. Members—

Mr. Winterton: The leaders, not the people.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: And the people, so far as it was possible to do so, and the House. The Joint Declaration was the result of consultation to such an extent that it is massively endorsed by people on all sides in Hong Kong as well as here as the true foundation for the future.
On my hon. Friend's second point, I am always ready and glad to receive advice from him on any subject. but the advice that one must regard as being more decisive is that which comes from Hong Kong.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to reply to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about whether the Government will recognise the trade mission, and if so what extent, that is due to visit Peking later this year?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position of that mission is still under consideration, and will be addressed according to the conclusions set out at the end of the Madrid summit last week. We certainly shall not sustain fresh subsidised business, but it would be foolish—this is the strong advice that I have received from Hong Kong—to move in the direction of an economic embargo on the People's Republic of China.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will certainly bear in mind the claims of hon. Members who have not been called on the statement.

Rail Dispute

Mr. Roger King: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
today's rail strike.
The matter raises a number of issues that deserve urgent debate, not only in respect of one-day stoppages but in the event of escalation of the present dispute. First there is the recalcitrant attitude that management and unions have adopted about negotiating terms. While they argue not about whether to talk but about where, the rest suffer.
Secondly, there is the question of the future of monopolies such as the railways and London Transport. Can we tolerate being held to ransom in this way? Should we not urgently discuss alternative structures? Is it not time to get on with opening up competition by privatising London Buses?
Thirdly, we must discuss how best to combat the effects of the stoppages. Extra car parking space merely exacerbates the problem of heavy traffic. More radical solutions are surely necessary if we are to fight back.
We need to establish a political consensus in tackling the wildcat strike, in the growing belief that such action by public service employees should be illegal. That means ascertaining the Opposition's views. If that leads them to a new set of principles, as with that adopted on nuclear weapons, it is all the more welcome.
Millions of our citizens are facing transport difficulties each week, with no apparent end in sight. Those difficulties and how to overcome them should be discussed by the House. Nothing is more urgent or relevant.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
today's rail strike.
I have listened to the hon. Member with care. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that the matter that the hon. Member has raised does not meet the criteria of the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to recall that at Scottish Question Time this afternoon, following question No. 3 from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie), you were kind enough to call me to ask a supplementary question? In reply to my question, the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—said that he was quoting from a private conversation. I therefore seek your guidance. First, have not you and many of your distinguished predecessors frowned upon the use of private conversations in the Chamber and is not the practice to be deplored, especially when it comes from a Minister? Secondly, as the Minister clearly misunderstood the name of the organisation about which I was seeking information and confused the Scottish Central Film Library with the Scottish Film Council, has he sought to withdraw the misleading impression that he gave the House, which remains the only decent thing for him to do and what the House would expect of him?

Mr. Speaker: I confirm that private conversations should be private. As for whether the Minister is prepared to withdraw his comment, that is not a matter for me.

Mr. John Maxton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. That was not the only occasion during Scottish Questions when some of us thought that the behaviour of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) did not match what most of us expect of Ministers or, in fact, from hon. Members on either side of the House. On one occasion, the hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to shut his mouth. That was the expression that he used. The Minister has a responsibility to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House to go to the Dispatch Box and apologise for his behaviour during Question Time.

Mr. Speaker: I certainly did not hear anything of that kind. We should move on.
European Community documents. Not moved.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Speaker: Not moved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the 11 motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Port of London Authority and London Borough of Newham) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Borough of Walsall) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Leeds Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Leeds Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.


That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Thames Water Authority) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Transport Land) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Sheffield Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Port of Tyne Authority and British Railways Board) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Various Local Authorities) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Prevention of Child Abduction

Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make satisfactory arrangements to prevent the illegal removal of children beyond the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts; and for connected purposes.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who have been working on behalf of representatives of children who have been abducted from the United Kingdom. I hope that, following today's discussion, all hon. Members with a common interest in this issue will join together to solve this growing problem.
On 22 May this year, in the spring Adjournment debate, I raised the case of my constituent, Mr. Colin Winstanley, whose children were removed from the jurisdiction of United Kingdom courts without his consent and, so far as I can ascertain, without the active consent of the children. Both children were taken by their mother to the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, and over the past few months Mr. Winstanley has not been able to make satisfactory arrangements to see his children. With the assistance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the children have been contacted belatedly and have expressed their desire to see their father and grandparents.
Tragically, Mr. Winstanley and his children are part of a growing army of forgotten people caught up in the Pied Piper world of child abduction. The tug of love syndrome means that 500 or more of our nation's little children are stolen, kidnapped and abducted each year, leaving a trail of grief-stricken mothers and sometimes fathers, in their wake.
Child abduction is a special crime, mainly involving parents—or sometimes grandparents—acting out of a perverted or overwhelming sense of love, fear of losing custody proceedings or desire to seek revenge in the wake of a broken relationship. The problem is growing and I contend that it has reached epidemic proportions.
On 12 June 1987, Law magazine reported on the issue, saying that it was estimated that between 200 and 500 cases occurred each year. It continued:
The scale of the problem flows from the increase in the number of international marriages and the high rate of separations, combined with ease of travel and employment overseas—and the belief of parents who have been denied custody here that the abduction of their children will result in a more favourable order in another country.
The problem is not confined to marriages where there is an international element. In August 1981, Jean Burt's British ex-husband flew out to Kuwait with her son Graham and instead of returning home from his holiday, he remained in Kuwait. She went to Kuwait and got a wardship order from the local courts. She held an English wardship order of custody which was finally recognised by the Kuwaiti authorities. She obtained an order for them to direct her husband to give up the child and to return him to the United Kingdom in April 1983. Unfortunately, there are few such instances of a successful conclusion in abduction cases. Moreover, Jean had to raise £13,000 for the return of her child. Even if the other country is prepared to co-operate, the child usually remains abducted and outside the jurisdiction of United Kingdom courts unless the mother has substantial resources at her disposal.
In the cases with which I and other hon. Members have dealt, one has an overwhelming feeling of helplessness. One sees the home without the child, with quiet, well-kept bedrooms, but none of the loving clutter of children, none of the screams of joy, the tears, the smell that always accompanies the child, the hugs or the feelings of warmth and safety. They are all denied to the parent and child who have been dragged from each other in a moment of madness and despair. It is almost as though the child has died and one sees the small shrine of photographs and toys. But it is worse than that. There is an unconsolable grief which cannot be exorcised.
Parliament has a special responsibility to the nation's children. We must act as their guardians and defenders in a real sense and, in the final analysis, be their ultimate liberators, acting to return them to the United Kingdom. Despite the admirable sentiments behind the Hague convention and the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, the abduction of our nation's children is on the increase. So far, the equivalent of three average-sized primary schools have been emptied of their pupils. More than 500 children are missing, never to be returned home and often living in socially hostile and disorienting environments. Sadly, many hon. Members of all parties are coming to the conclusion that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not want to meddle in so-called "family affairs". The children are regarded as a diplomatic embarrassment and a nuisance which could interfere with diplomatic relations.
The 1985 Act has, in practice, failed to protect hundreds of innocent little victims of the unique social crime of child abduction. As recently as 1 July this year, a report in The Independent investigating the issue said of the Act:
In practice, the children's return is rarely prompt; case after case has been trapped in the morass of competing legal systems and bureaucracies. To pay for travel, accommodation, legal costs and, where the husband has gone underground, a private investigator, requires considerable private funds, which most of these women simply do not have.
The Foreign Office has stated that it is vital that taxpayers' money should not be wasted. That is rich indeed, from a Government who have spent millions of pounds chasing around the courts of the world to prevent publication of various memoirs about the secret service. If such resources are at the Lord Chancellor's disposal, they

should be used to chase around the courts of the world on behalf of little children who have been abducted and wish to return to the United Kingdom but cannot do so.
In 1984, Lord Brandon was reported as saying in the House of Lords:
I see no good reason why, in relation to the kidnapping of a child, it should not in all cases be the absence of the child's consent which is material, whatever its age may be. In the case of a very young child, it would not have the understanding or the intelligence to give its consent".
Abduction removes the child's right to consent. The challenge that my Bill seeks to address is the child's inability to have a say about its abduction.
The Bill will have four main provisions. The first is the establishment of a children's ombudsman to provide legal aid, advice and assistance to retrieve children currently illegally abducted to places outside the jurisdiction of United Kingdom courts. The ombudsman will also provide advice about preventing abduction and will mediate between the Governments and legal systems of the countries to which children have been abducted.
Secondly, the Bill will provide resources to reunite the National Council for Abducted Children with other voluntary self-help groups. Thirdly, the Bill will seek to amend current court practices and will provide for the issuing of advice to judges to ensure the automatic surrender of passports to the courts during custody proceedings and the automatic entry of child custody decisions in the passports of the parents or guardians and of the children concerned.
Fourthly, the Bill will seek the establishment and maintenance of a register of abducted children, because at the moment we do not even know how many children have been abducted.
If the House were to fail in this matter, and if the Government were to fail to take action, a blot would be left on the character of the House and a stain on the nation's conscience.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Roger Stott, Mr. Frank Doran, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Keith Bradley, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Gerry Steinberg and Ms. Dawn Primarolo.

PREVENTION OF CHILD ABDUCTION

Mr. Ian McCartney accordingly presented a Bill to make satisfactory arrangements to prevent the illegal removal of children beyond the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 164.]

Opposition Day

16TH ALLOTTED DAY

Training

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House, noting the fiasco of Employment Training which has reached only 40 per cent. of the Government's target and now has a drop-out rate of nearly 50 per cent., as both employers and trainees reject the programme as under-funded, poor quality and low-paid, and noting that job-related training for 16 to 19 year olds have been constantly falling in recent years, calls on the Government to remedy the growing skills shortage by investment in training which matches the funding, quality, skills and economic commitment of the United Kingdom's major competitor countries.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Meacher: In 1992, with the advent of the internal market, Britain will face economic pressures at least as intense and competitive as those we faced on our entry to the Common Market 16 years ago. The coverage and quality of our skills training will then become one of our key economic weapons. It is the contention of the Opposition that the Government have consistently and drastically failed to develop that aspect of the country's economic defences so that today we have an adult training programme which is spurned by employers and trainees alike and which is poised to collapse before it has reached even half its target.
There was no lack of ministerial hype at the programme's inception last September, when the Secretary of State for Employment said:
Employment training is the largest and most ambitious training programme ever undertaken, and the scope and opportunity it offers to longer-term unemployed people is unrivalled anywhere in the world.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): Hear, hear.

Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear," which serves to make my point.
However, the reality is rather different. Five months after the programme started, the Financial Times reported:
The Government is cutting the number of places on its employment training scheme by 10 per cent. because not enough people have joined.
On the same day, The Independent reported that more than 70 local authorities of all political persuasions had withdrawn from the scheme. One of those, the Tory-controlled council covering the Prime Minister's constituency, closed its 400-place ET scheme. A report prepared by officials at Barnet council, which was endorsed by councillors, stated:
One of the factors blamed for the failure was that most participants in the old Community Programme, where maximum earnings are £60 a week, refused to switch to ET where they are allowed only normal benefit plus £10 expenses.
That confirms everything that the Opposition have always said.
The Secretary of State's TV extravaganza got it slightly wrong. To the bars of what I can only describe as somewhat incongruous music, the extravaganza proclaimed:
We'll train the workers without jobs to do the jobs without workers.
It really meant:
We'll train the workers without jobs to do the jobs without wages.
At the launch of ET on 1 September last year, the Secretary of State made his objective very clear. Amid enormous media fanfare, he declared:
Employment training will provide training for some 600,000 people a year.
Nine months on, by which time the target of 450,000 places should have been filled, only 187,000 places have been filled. The Government have achieved just 41 per cent. of their target. However, internal confidential Department of Employment management papers, which I have seen, paint a bleaker picture. They show that no fewer than 117,000 people have already dropped out of the scheme and that there is an overall dropout rate of no less than 46 per cent. Worse still, the dropout rate is accelerating fast. In January the dropout rate was 36 per cent. In February it was 41 per cent. In March it was 57 per cent. and in April—the last month for which figures are available—it was 75 per cent.
The Secretary of State may well screw up his face, because those figures come from his Department. If the trend continues, the number of leavers each month will soon be larger than the number of starters. On that evidence, the number of trainees on ET could begin to fall before the scheme's first anniversary—ET's first anniversary could also be its last.
At the start of the scheme, the Secretary of State was full of overblown rhetoric about the employers' response. On 29 December, according to a Department of Employment press notice, he announced:
Britain's biggest companies have given Britain's biggest adult training programme a ringing endorsement into the New Year.
A little earlier, he was carried away enough to state:
The response from providers to the challenge of Employment Training has been magnificent, and the Training Commission now has in place a comprehensive network of training agents and training managers.
Six months later, on 12 June, in answer to a parliamentary question from me, the Secretary of State was forced to admit the truth behind the billboard waffle. He had to admit that only 13 major companies had signed up with ET on a national scale and that only two of them had filled more than half the places for which they had contracted. If the employers' response has been so magnificent, why has Habitat contracted for 200 places, but filled none of them? Why has Mothercare contracted for 50 places but filled none? Why has Heron Service Stations contracted for 81 places but filled only one?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is either knowingly deceiving the House or deceiving himself. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Secretary of State can make some amendments to what he has just said.

Mr. Fowler: Of course I will. The hon. Gentleman is mis-stating the position. He has just given the impression —all hon. Members have heard it—that only 13 major companies have been associated with employment


training. That is the clear implication. He is quoting only one part—that is, the numbers who are with the large companies unit of the Department of Employment. One hundred and twenty major companies, and 1,000 companies over all, have contracted to do employment training. That is why what the hon. Gentleman has said is deeply misleading. His remarks about the numbers are also misleading. He is either doing that intentionally or without knowledge. He is confusing the number of filled places with the throughput in employment training. What he has stated so far is very misleading.

Mr. Meacher: I obviously asked a rather pointed and embarrassing question. I was quoting from the answer that I was given. It is the right hon. Gentleman himself who says that only 13 companies have joined up with ET nationally. That is the fact and that is what he said only three weeks ago.

Mr. Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I will give way once more.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman can at least concede that what I have said—that is, that 120 major companies are working with ET—is truthful.

Mr. Meacher: In that case, why was that not in the original answer? Why is it that the answer that I quoted were the right hon. Gentleman's words?

Mr. Fowler: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I will not give way again. The right hon. Gentleman has a lot more explaining to do, so we will reserve the opportunity for him.
Perhaps he could explain also the findings in the report of the Institute of Manpower Studies, which was commissioned by his own Department and which he so coyly refuses to publish. The institute interviewed 40 large companies, not just the 13 that I have been talking about. Most of them employ more than 1,000 people—precisely the group about whom the right hon. Gentleman is talking —but they did not give ET the ringing endorsement that the right hon. Gentleman claimed. In no uncertain terms, they criticised the Department of Employment's Training Agency for its
excessive inflexibility, jargon, bureaucracy and confusion.
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that that is what they think.
The right hon. Gentleman also had pretensions that the scheme would be attractive for the unemployed. In September, he announced with great flourish that
it will offer training at every level from basic skills to technician level skills, and will enable unemployed people to acquire the skills they need to find and keep work.
The reality six months later, as The Guardian reported on 24 March, under a headline "Unemployed shun ET", is that
Targets on the Government's … Employment Training scheme … have been drastically reduced by between 30 and 50 per cent. in some parts of the country because of poor demand for places.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I will not give way. I want to get on; it is a short debate.
At about the same time, the Financial Times reported:
Employment Training … is facing mounting difficulties in attracting trainees in the north-east, an area with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.
It went on to state that in Cleveland, for example,
only 81 of the 450 places with employers have been filled.
It is altogether a sobering and humiliating story, yet the Government's advertising blurb still continues to take on a life of its own, divorced from any reality
Custom-made to give people the skills they need for tomorrow's jobs
is another of the Government's slogans. What happens on the ground is a rather different story. I recently received a letter from a man in Wales who applied to go on ET for agricultural maintenance, with a view to starting his own business. In his own words, this is what happened to him:
Day 1. Went to local office at 9 am, filled in two forms and sat until 4 pm. The woman in charge was a senior team leader who was also on a training scheme, and appeared to have no idea why I or anyone else was there.
Day 2. Reported at 9 am sat around till 3.30 went home.
Day 3. Same routine, but had fire drill.
Day 4. Same routine—despite repeated inquiries, could obtain no information regarding the training programme.
Day 5. Finally visited training centre forty-one miles away …
The workshop was … an old shed, with rubbish strewn about, bits of steel, old engine parts and no clear working surfaces … The gas cutting gear had perished pipes, and there was no evidence of goggles; the electrical equipment had no safety cut-outs. The only supervisor I saw was also responsible for a hundred and forty acres, two workshops, livestock and twelve trainees. There was no trained instructor, in fact they are advertising for one.
Trainees on farm work were left unsupervised to drive tractors with no brakes or safety frames, one trainee was operating a mechanical digger with the engine overheating to such an extent that steam was coming from it.
In case the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that was a rather special or one-off letter, I have had a mass of letters about ET, which would be almost funny if the matter were not absolutely depressing. In the Wirral, a trainee painter and decorator was taught by unqualified people who previously worked in landscape gardening. In London, two unemployed people who wanted to be a chef and a bricklayer were sent on an amateur video-making course because there was nothing else available. In Liverpool, a car mechanic was working in a swimming pool—presumably not on a car—and a trainee refrigerator engineer was sent to insulate lofts.
One might have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have responded to those inanities with a measure of humility by redoubling his efforts to make his ET course rather more relevant and appropriate. What he has redoubled is the advertising budget, which is now running at a cool £9 million. The right hon. Gentleman has told training managers who provide the training to adjust not the relevance of their ET courses but their publicity. They have been told to provide the Department of Employment with "good news stories" which
it is essential that we publicise.
He even had the bright idea of asking "ET graduates" to participate in an "ET roll of honour" which is to be
displayed prominently for maximum publicity in unemployment benefit offices and job centres".
Instead of all the ludicrous and false packaging to conceal a massive failure on the ground, and instead of the glossy advertising costing £9 million, the right hon. Gentleman would do far better to direct taxpayers' money


and his own Department's efforts to improving the lamentable quality of training on ET and giving employers and trainees a proper deal.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I do not know whether it is just a further example of the county of Kent being superior to any other place in the country, but the experience of ET in my part of Kent is almost unidentifiable with the hon. Gentleman's. I would be interested to hear whether he has letters of that kind from Kent.

Mr. Meacher: I am sure that we shall be interested to hear from the hon. Gentleman if he can produce some real examples, because clearly he is embarrassed by the roll call of disasters that I have mentioned. I will be surprised if Kent does not have its disasters, too.
The Government's propaganda on ET is riddled with manipulation and deceit. The Government profess to favour the training of married women to fill the demographic gap. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), said a week ago:
Employers must look beyond traditional sources of recruitment to provide the workforce of the 1990s. Ninety per cent. of the growth in the labour market in the 1990s will be women and many of these will be women 'returners'.
The point is that the Government refuse to make married women eligible for ET child care allowances. When Kay Jackson, a married woman with three pre-school aged children, challenged that at an industrial tribunal in January as being in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act, she won. But what did the Secretary of State then do? Instead of extending ET child care allowances to married women, he took them away from single parents who already received them.
The Government profess to he in favour of developing the voluntary sector, yet ET is destroying it. In Birmingham, the Voluntary Services Council was forced to close its 400-place ET scheme earlier this year. Only two months ago, the Council for Social Action in Manchester, which in the north had been a flagship project with 1,000 trainees, was forced into liquidation with £500,000 of debts and was forced to make 200 staff redundant. In April of last year, 220,000 community programme workers were in post performing a whole range of social and community services. Now there are only 97,000 ET trainees in such project-based services. That decline has had a devastating impact on community provision for the most disadvantaged in our society, such as the elderly and the disabled, which had been built up on community provision funding, and is now being destroyed.
If Britain is being miserably served by ET in meeting adult training needs for 1992, youth training is being handled with an equal lack of drive and imagination. The right hon. Gentleman keeps telling us about the demographic gap. We all know that there will be a 25 per cent. shortfall in the number of 16 and 17-year-olds over the next five years. However, the right hon. Gentleman then proposes to fill that gap with more married women, while denying them child care allowances, or with more older workers, while focusing ET on the under-50s.
What the right hon. Gentleman will not accept is the obvious policy of upgrading YTS and ridding it of its deserved label of cheap labour. The fact is that still less than 30 per cent. of trainees who leave YTS obtain a vocational qualification; still the general experience is of

low-cost training, patchily equipping young people with skills that are not in short supply; and still, as the Confederation of British Industry reminds us in its report today, more than 100,000 16-year-olds enter the labour market every year with no training at all.
The past two years have shown that it is still true that three quarters of YTS trainees drop out of the scheme prematurely and that Britain still has a participation rate for 16 and 17-year-olds in education and training trailing 20 to 30 per cent. behind that of our main competitors in Germany, the United States and Japan. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science is supporting that.
The Government's sole answer to those manifest deficiencies of training, as in every other sector, is privatization—selling off the skill centres and replacing the training agency by employer-dominated training enterprise councils. In fact, the sale of skill centres has nothing to do with improving the quality of training, but it has everything to do with asset stripping on the model of Royal Ordnance. The management buy-out covers only 20 of the 58 skill centres, and I understand that for the rest there is such lack of interest that probably one third of the sites will not even have a bidder unless they are given the incentive of a quick property killing—such as at Twickenham, Perivale and Slough, along the M4 corridor, or Lambeth skill centre in the middle of docklands, which I understand already has B2 planning permission now granted for any office or industrial development.
It is characteristic, but shameful, that the Government are far more interested in selling off the country's training assets than in investing in high-quality training to match our competitors. However, the TECs are not proving popular even with the employers who will control them. Presumably the Prime Minister thought that their appeal would be irresistible when, in the blaze of publicity at the launch of the TEC prospectus in March, she called on British employers to recreate the traditions of the medieval guild system
when father taught son … and when apprentices learned from their masters.
However, I am glad to note that the reintroduction of master-servant grading holds less attraction for employers than for the Prime Minister as an obvious model for training.
It is employers, not just the unions, who have been expressing considerable disquiet about both the impact and representativeness of the TECs. It is employers who are complaining that the creation of 80 self-governing TECs will lead to the fragmentation of training and the undermining of industrywide and national standards. I understand that the Government are apparently now even proposing to phase out the approved training organisers, who are the one sure guarantee of quality control. It is employers who have been saying that they fear that the TECs are a smoke screen to disguise the Government's retreat from funding industrial training.
It was, in fact, the employers, in a letter from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to the right hon. Gentleman in February, who disowned the TECs by complaining:
there will be no mechanism by which it can be ensured that TEC boards, once appointed, do not become self-perpetuating and take decisions in isolation from the local … communities.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No, I would prefer to finish. Owing to the earlier business, there is a shortness of time in this debate.
With friends like that, it is scarcely surprising that out of the 100 TECs that the Government were originally planning, they have had only 22 applications from employers. It is scarcely surprising also that the flagship TECs which were planned for London and Birmingham have been ignominiously postponed indefinitely due to in-fighting and inefficiency.

Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Meacher: No, I am going to finish.
Not only have the three that have been planned for London been put on ice, but the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman has not even been able to get off the ground the Birmingham TEC covering his constituency.
There can be no sharper difference between the political parties than in policies on training. Under this Tory Government, British companies now spend on training only one third of what is spent by German companies. Only 30 per cent. of our work force have recognised qualifications equivalent to one O-level, compared with 70 per cent. in Germany. Yet the Government are intending to cut YTS funding by £25 million this year in cash terms and to cut the real resources for ET over the next three years.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way. I shall finish.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he will not give way. This is simply wasting time, when there is very little of it.

Mr. Meacher: Labour, by contrast, proposes a detailed programme to transform Britain's training culture. YTS will be replaced by a traineeship scheme offering recognised qualifications and quality training for up to four years. All employers will be required to promote training for their staff, setting a minimum number of hours training that each employee should expect each year. In addition, we also propose an opportunity training programme open to all adults who wish to retrain in skills of regional economic need or national importance.
Because we recognise that a national training strategy has been conspicuous by its absence in the past 10 years, because we recognise that such a strategy is vital to Britain's future and because we are determined to implement it, we shall press this motion tonight.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
noting that Employment Training is the largest and fastest growing training programme for adults ever mounted in this country, and noting the success of YTS in equipping young people for jobs or further education, and the record scale of

public resources devoted to training, welcomes the Government's achievements in improving the quantity and quality of training in Britain and the major further steps it now proposes to take to meet the training needs of the 1990's.".
The speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was almost barren of any suggestion, until his last words. Above all, it was wrong in every aspect of every area that it covered. The hon. Gentleman was wrong about employment training, he was wrong about YTS, he was wrong about the Skills Training Agency and, above all, he was wrong about the training and enterprise councils. When the hon. Gentleman talks of a lack of enthusiasm for TECs, one wonders where he has been for the past few months. There has been a tremendous enthusiasm for them and I must tell the House that the first application for a TEC came from Oldham, the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The hon. Gentleman was as wrong about the TECs as he was about every other issue he raised.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The Floor has been held for 27 minutes by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. The Labour party has just published its policy review, and although all sides of the House recognise the importance of training, we have listened to a 27-minute speech that was devoid of any new proposals to take training forward. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an absolute disgrace?

Mr. Fowler: Yes. In every respect the speech was revealing of the hon. Member for Oldham, West and of the way in which he leads for the Opposition in this matter.
I welcome the opportunity to debate training, because, as my hon. Friend has said, no issue is more important for the future economic prosperity of the country. It is crucial that we take steps now to ensure that we have the supply of skills that our economy will need in the 1990s and beyond. Training is the key to economic growth, to jobs and to prosperity. That is the case for training, and I welcome this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to it.
The Opposition have shown a curious sense of timing in choosing to debate training on this particular day when the railways and much of London have been crippled by strikes. It is curious that the hon. Gentleman talked so freely about the national interest in relation to training, when he is so blind to the national interest in relation to strikes. It is especially curious that the hon. Gentleman freely condemns everything that the Government have done for training when he is so reluctant to condemn trade union leaders for calling strikes that bring hardship to thousands of people.
When the hon. Gentleman talks about the importance of employment and training, does it occur to him that strikes were one of the main reasons why we lost so many jobs in the 1970s? We are not prepared to take any lectures from him on training, any more than we are prepared to take any lectures from him on industrial relations.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on whether the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is speaking for the Labour party, given that, last September, there were grave differences between the hon. Gentleman and the leader of his party and between him and the trade unions?

Mr. Fowler: It would not be right for me to speculate on that as I have no intention of intruding on the private grief of the Opposition on this matter.
The necessary background to this debate is the employment situation. It is important to consider the current situation and how it will develop in the 1990s to draw lessons for training. In the past two years, the employment situation radically improved. Unemployment has now fallen for 34 consecutive months. [Interruption.] I should have thought that the hon. Member for Oldham, West would welcome that reduction rather than laugh at it. Since the general election, unemployment has fallen by more than 1 million, and unemployment in this country is now well below the European Community average. During the past two years, long-term unemployment has fallen by a record 500,000 and it is falling faster than the rate of general unemployment. That is of special significance to employment training and to other adult programmes.

Mr. Meacher: What about training?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman must understand that employment is the background to training.
During the past two years, unemployment among young people under the age of 24 has fallen by 41 per cent. and it is now half the EC average. It has fallen so much and so quickly because we have had an unprecedented increase in jobs. Now, 26·5 million people are at work in this country, more than ever before in our history. During the past six years, nearly 3 million new jobs have been created, and job opportunities have improved dramatically. That is illustrated by the fact that there are about 600,000 job vacancies in the economy now. In the space of a few years, we have moved from a position of labour surplus to one of potential shortage, particularly among the groups on whom employers have traditionally relied for their skilled and qualified staff.
Just as important are the profound demographic changes that are now taking place and which will affect every profession and every occupation. In the next five years, the number of school leavers coming on to the labour market will fall sharply. The number of 16 to 19-year-olds in the population will have fallen by more than 1 million between 1983 and 1993, and shows no sign of returning to its previous level. Therefore, we must make full use of our potential in this country. We must bring new recruits into the labour market.
The major message is that training must be at the top of the agenda. Training is as vital for young people as it is for unemployed people to bring them into employment. Training is also vital for employed people to enable them to develop their full potential. Unless the case for training is set against the background of employment, we are debating in a vacuum. It is foolish to argue otherwise.

Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend probably has not heard the extremely good news from Cleveland today, where one firm has announced a £80 million investment and the creation of 1,000 jobs, while another has announced a £50 million investment and the creation of 600 jobs.

Mr. Fowler: That is good news, and I hope that even the Opposition, in their present mood, will feel inclined to welcome that.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there are distinct regional differences in training needs? Much of today's argument recognises that those differences are vast. The

national scheme has missed the boat completely and has failed to recognise that the long-term unemployed have particular training needs different from those in employment. When will the Government give local authorities the opportunity to develop training needs to suit local requirements and thus the opportunity to move away from the national scheme that has missed everybody?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who has, reasonably succinctly, put the case for training and enterprise councils. The point of those councils is that we are devolving power to the local areas. It is crucial that this problem should not be left merely to schools and colleges. Improvements are obviously important, and the reforms of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will undoubtedly improve the position. We should remember that eight out of 10 people who will be in the work force in the year 2000, are already in the work force and have left the education system. Side by side with education reform, we need the training reform which is now taking place.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West was scathing about employers' contributions, and unfairly so. He fails to recognise that employers already spend about £18 billion a year on training, which gives the lie to the claim that we are suffering from employer neglect. The true position is shown by the evidence—

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: rose—

Mr. Fowler: May I continue?
The true position is clear from the evidence in the labour force survey which was published earlier this year and showed the number of people receiving training. Those figures, which specifically exclude people on Government training programmes, show that the number of people in training has risen significantly in each of the past five years. The number of people in training during the relevant four weeks—taking a snapshot of that period —increased from 1·8 million in 1984 to 2·8 million in 1988. That is the figure for a four-week period, not the 12-month period. During the period from spring 1984 to spring 1988, the number of people in training rose by more than 50 per cent. That is the trend —

Mr. Bruce Grocott: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way. I have given way several times already—indeed, far more often than did the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
The latest labour force survey shows that the number of people receiving training has risen for every age group. It also shows that 70 per cent. of those in training are receiving part of their training away from the job. Those figures show that employers are increasing their investment in training and that the number of trainees is growing year by year.

Mr. Grocott: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I have made it clear that I shall not give way.

Mr. Grocott: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has constantly made it clear that he is not giving way and such behaviour is merely consuming time in this short debate.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member for Oldham, West tried to play down the Government's contribution to training. Again, the facts simply do not support what he said. In each of the past five years, the Government have spent about £3 billion on training programmes. If we contrast that with the record of the last Labour Government, we find that between 1974 and 1979, expenditure on training was £500 million. In real terms, we are spending three times more than the last Labour Government. The position for young people today is a far cry from the black days of the collapse of apprenticeships at the end of the 1970s. Today, more than 386,000 young people are being trained under the youth training scheme. They are to be found in every sector of the economy and at all levels of skill.
Since YTS began in 1983, well over 2 million young people have been trained through this programme, and more than 1 million have been trained since the two-year YTS began in April 1986. Some 63 per cent. of people who complete the two-year YTS gain vocational qualifications and more than 80 per cent. of them go into jobs or further training. By any standard, that is a substantial achievement.

Mr. Grocott: Before the Secretary of State continues with his selective use of statistics and boasting, will he confirm the disgraceful reply given by his right hon. Friend the Minister of State a week or so ago, when asked about the level of engineering apprenticeships in the west midlands area, about which he should know something. He said that, since 1979, the level of engineering apprenticeships in the west midlands had collapsed by 50 per cent. Will the Secretary of State apologise to the House for that appalling record on real skills training, for which the Government bear the responsibility?

Mr. Fowler: I shall not do that, because we now have almost 400,000 young people in training. However attached the hon. Gentleman may be to the apprenticeship scheme, one reason why that scheme collapsed was the inflexibility of the apprenticeships, which meant that, whatever happened, the scheme was going to change.
With the decline in the number of school leavers entering employment, it is more essential than ever to establish firm and constructive links between schools and employers, and to ensure that young people starting work for the first time can achieve the educational standards which employers seek and have access to proper training when they move into employment.
For those reasons, I am announcing today that the Government have agreed to support a further 11 inner-city compacts. The essence of the compact is that employers guarantee jobs with training for school leavers who reach specified levels of attainment while in full-time education. The first 30 compacts have made an excellent start, and the response of employers, young people and schools has been enthusiastic. More than 230 schools will be taking part in compacts this September, covering 30,000 young people. Well over 1,000 employers and many training organisations have agreed to support compacts by offering guaranteed jobs and training. The Government are providing more than £16 million to support the development of compacts over the next four years.
I have no doubt that the compacts are an important development. They show how young people can benefit from a partnership between employers and schools to

ensure that achievements in full-time education are rewarded by training and jobs and, most importantly, point the way to a much closer and more constructive link between school and employment, which can only be to the benefit of young people and employers alike. I recognise too that there is even further potential the development of new compacts.
I turn now to the issue of the training of unemployed people over the age of 18. The wording of the motion and the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West shows an ignorance of the nature and purpose of employment training. The programme was originally designed by the Manpower Services Commission for a maximum of 300,000 people in training at any one time. Employment training now has nearly 200,000 in training. That has been achieved after the programme has been in operation for less than 10 months. Even the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic will tell him that 200,000 is a good deal more than 40 per cent. of 300,000.
To have achieved 200,000 filled places in less than 10 months in a programme starting virtually from scratch is an enormous achievement. No previous programme has come remotely near this rate of expansion. For example, the community programme had managed to fill only 57,000 places after it had been in operation for nine months. Furthermore, since I announced the decision to introduce employment training in November 1987, unemployment has fallen by nearly 800,000, and longer-term unemployment has fallen faster than unemployment generally. There has been a huge reduction in the group of people for whom the programme was designed.
That is regarded as good news by everyone except the hon. Member for Oldham, West and one or two of his hon. Friends. It makes the achievement of 200,000 filled places in employment training after less than 10 months of operation all the more remarkable. Almost 40 per cent. of those starting on the programme have been unemployed for more than two years.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West repeated his claim that employers are turning their backs on employment training. That is wholly without foundation. He is confusing the figures that he asked for on the national contracting arrangements with the overall figures for employers. More than 1,000 employers are providing training places under employment training; about 120 major employers are involved; 27 major employers have contracted with my Department to provide the full range of training under ET. They include companies such as Ferranti, Grand Metropolitan, Pilkington, Laing, Comet and Wimpey—

Mr. Tony Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman waits a minute, he will find out something.
Between them, these major employers have contracted to provide almost 15,000 places. Some contracted fairly recently, but almost 8,000 of those places have already been filled. In addition, more than 90 other major employers have contracted to provide training places. They include firms such as Mercury Telecommunications. British Nuclear Fuels, Barratts and W. H. Smith. The number of employers who want to become involved with ET and to provide training places for the programme is growing all the time.
The criticisms of employment training levelled by the hon. Member for Oldham, West lack credibility since, from the beginning, he has done everything possible to damage the programme. He opposed it even before the ink was dry on the original report from the Manpower Services Commission, which was fully supported at that time by the TUC. The Labour party's record of opposition to employment training has been shabby and disreputable and it does not entitle them to sit in judgment on the programme.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West has been quick to condemn the decision to set up the training and enterprise councils. Contrary to everything he said and to everything that is happening outside the House, the response to my invitation to employers and others to come forward with proposals for setting up training and enterprise councils has been overwhelmingly enthusiastic. They are potentially the biggest revolution in training ever in this country, because they represent a deliberate and major devolution of responsibility for training from Whitehall and the old industry level training organisations to local communities.
The TECs will be different from the sort of training organisations that we have had before in three vital respects. First, they will be employer-led. The members of TECs will include people from many different organisations, but employers will be in the lead because they are the main customers for training and the main providers of it.
Secondly, TECs will have executive responsibility: they will not be talking shops or advisory councils. They will be responsible for running large-scale programmes such as ET and YTS. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the focus of TECs will be firmly on the local labour market. It is at the local level that training needs are most effectively identified and that practical solutions to them can best be developed.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Oldham, West suggested about applications, we await next week's announcement of which applications have been approved. The whole House will then see how foolish the hon. Gentleman's words were. I have already received 30 applications to set up training and enterprise councils from all over the country, and about 50 others are now in preparation. In a few days from now, I shall announce the names of the first 19 TECs to receive development funding. With the applications that I have already received and with those which will come forward in the next few months, I am confident that we shall be able to cover England and Wales with TECs during the next year or so.
I believe that the councils represent the best hope of a lasting solution to the problem of skill shortages which has held back the growth of our economy time and again in the past 40 years. They are the key to ensuring that we have the skills that our industries and services will need in the 1990s and beyond.
I have tried to describe the Government's record on training and to give the facts about it in this country. Enormous changes are taking place in the world of training and a huge amount of training is taking place. A great many individuals, firms and training organisations are committed to training people in the skills that our country needs. They are training young people, adults, unemployed people and people in jobs, and they want to be allowed to get on with that job. They know how crucial it is to our future and they cannot understand why the hon. Member for Oldham, West appears to be so determined to turn training into a political battleground.
The hon. Gentleman has a bad reputation in respect of almost every aspect of training and we must ask him what he thinks he is achieving. What does he think is the point of continually attacking a programme such as YTS, which is training 386,000 of our school leavers? What is the point of continually attacking a programme like employment training, which is training almost 200,000 long-term unemployed people? What is the point of attacking employers who are investing £18 billion a year in training their own employees? What is the point of attacking training and enterprise councils, which constitute one of the most hopeful signs in training for decades?
It is time the Opposition acknowledged that the training efforts of employers' training organisations and trainees deserve the fullest possible support, because it is on their efforts and their success that the future of this country depends. We shall support them, and I ask the House to reject the ridiculous Opposition motion.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I intend to be brief, because this is a short debate.
It is shameful that a Minister responsible for training and employment should ask why our spokesman is not worried about the strikes. If that is the best he can do, he should chuck it in.
I could take the Minister to parts of my constituency in which factories with a history of excellent industrial relations and increased productivity no longer exist because the bovver boys engaged in asset-stripping took them over and shut them down.
I hope that the Minister will learn from the lessons of the past 10 years and from the abuses that have taken place. He will be burying his head in the sand if he thinks that there have been no abuses of MSC schemes and YTS. Trainees should be given a decent wage for the work that they do. Why should anyone go out in the morning and work hard at training which will benefit the country when he is paid less than he would get on the dole? Often, these people are married men and women with family responsibilities.
I remember the late David Penhaligon saying in a debate that a farmer in his constituency went into the employment centre and asked, "When can I get my free boy?" That was the sort of attitude that people had to MSC schemes and the YTS. In my constituency, a garage employer took on five young boys, although he could not train them all properly. He told them that one out of the five would be kept on. The boys realised that one boy in particular stood out and they expected that at least he would be kept on. Instead, the employer sacked them all and started with another five. He simply used them as cheap labour. The boys told me this story and said that an alsatian dog was locked in the garage as a watchdog at night, and that every morning one of the boys had to start by clearing up the dog's dirt. I hope that the Minister does not regard that as trivial.
There were problems even with the most responsible employers in workshops in my constituency. In one, where some boys were taken on as part of the employment training scheme, the supervisor was so insensitive as to ask them, "How does it feel to be a liability to the state?" That was a cheek, coming from someone working in an industry which has had many subsidies from the Government. There was a sign in a baker's shop in Glasgow, "YTS for


two years to train as a shop assistant." Ten years ago, a girl who went to work in a baker's shop as an assistant usually ended up as a manageress within two years.
There were problems with MSC schemes which created businesses. Some of the people setting up such schemes were charlatans. With the blessing of the MSC and the Minister's officials, directors set up a community company and started employing their wives, their relatives, their aunties and their uncles. The employees in turn set up other community businesses, so that they could employ yet more relatives. Other hon. Members have had similar experiences in their constituencies. When I raised these matters with the MSC, it wanted to turn a blind eye. The only conclusion that I can draw is that such schemes enable Ministers to say that people have come off the dole. The exercise is not about training or bringing assets to the community, or about getting the economy into better shape. It is aimed at allowing a Minister to get off the hook when the Opposition bring pressure to bear on him in the House.
I have another example. The Minister can check this up, as I will give him the name of the company. A scheme to train young people was being wound up because there was not enough training input, and some £13,000 was left in the kitty. Some of the trainers had the cheek to go to the trustees and say that they were being put on the dole and wanted the £13,000 to be split between them. That showed the nature of these so-called responsible people who had been put in charge of young trainees.
The company that I have already mentioned, which employed all the relatives of its directors, was also wound up. That company had word processors, printers, photocopiers and all sorts of other equipment. When I asked whether the equipment could be used by the community, I was told that the law required that it be put up for auction, so auctioneers came in and took what little was left.
I spoke to my branch of the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union—the metalworkers branch—because I thought that many of its members in Glasgow would be unemployed. To my surprise, I was told by the full-time officer that only a few members were on the books as unemployed. I said, "That's great—is there a boom in industry?" He said, "No. What is happening is this. The industry is suffering because over the past 10 years we have not started any apprentices, so those who have a skill are in high demand, but every year the work force gets older and it will disappear out of the work system altogether if we do not do something about it."
When the Minister considers proper apprenticeship schemes, will he also consider the adult apprenticeship schemes in countries such as New Zealand, Canada and the United States? Young people have told me that even though they are now married, they have never had a decent job. This is what happened to my father. During the depression, because he could not learn a trade, he became a labourer and would have stayed one all his life, had he not become a merchant seaman so as to get a decent living. As a young man he had no chance because he was involved in the great depression. Many people of that generation were bitter because they did not get that chance. We now have another generation like that, and they should be

entitled to apprenticeships. If they can find the craftsmen to take them on, there should be a Government subsidy to allow it.
We have failed miserably, particularly in relation to women with grown-up families. We often talk about careers for women, but I suspect that we talk too much about the academics. I do not begrudge them getting jobs, but some women want semi-skilled jobs, such as ancillary nursing work. We talk about the family unit. Some women have stayed at home for 15 or 16 years of their marriage to make sure that there is a mother in the house when children come home, so that they have security at home and do not get into trouble. We are doing nothing to help such women to get back into industry, nursing or commerce. I hope that the Minister will examine that problem.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: I agreed with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) when he said at the start of his speech that the competitiveness that we shall need in the single market after 1992 will depend on how well trained people are. Thereafter, I agreed with virtually nothing that he said as he carried on the practice of running down training schemes. Such training is vital, but people say that it is no good, and that what the Government, the country and employers do for training is inadequate. That is far from the truth.
The Opposition still scream about YTS. They have never quite got over the fact that when it was first introduced they said, as they said about ET, that it would be no good, that it would not work and that it would be of no use, but in fact it has been of use. It was noticeable that when it was extended for two years, the Opposition did not complain. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be interested to know that in my local area a survey was done a few years ago by one of the Rotary clubs into what pupils about to leave secondary schools thought about YTS. The majority accepted that it presented a realistic opportunity to train in useful skills.
We talk about employment training and YTS for those who are not employed. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, however, we should remember that 80 per cent. of those who will be part of the commercial and industrial world in the year 2000 are already in employment. Training must therefore be available to that critically important sector. Measures announced by my right hon. Friend in the past two years, particularly those involving TECs, will make training in particular skills possible.
It will be impossible to provide the right training without unity among employers, educational institutions and work forces, along with local knowledge. No measures suggested by the Opposition have brought that about. The hon. Member for Oldham, West spoke of a national strategy, but given what we know of Labour's past ideas, such a strategy would almost certainly be a national straitjacket. Training would be controlled not by those who need it—employers and employees—but by a centralised notion of what is right for everyone everywhere, and we know that that does not work.
Over the years, the idea has developed that training must be oriented towards what companies want. Someone may be being trained for what could generally be described as trade, but what the company training him wants may


not be directly translatable to another company—for instance, an engineering firm. One advantage of many training courses provided by both the private sector and training boards is that they are custom-made. Changes introduced by the Government have encouraged training boards to become self-supporting institutions. The engineering industry training board has said that it can and will provide what employers want, in the private sector or as an independent organisation. Surely that is what is most important—to make people want training.
The Opposition have encouraged the idea that training is not necessarily useful. We heard a good deal of that in the days of union domination in manufacturing industry, when the suggestion that people should learn new skills and adapt to new circumstances was frequently resisted, as was the idea of change.

Mr. David Clelland: Will the hon. Gentleman give examples? I am sure that my hon. Friends with experience of trade union matters would join me in challenging the hon. Gentleman to refute my claim that the best training has taken place in those industries in which unions are recognised and participate fully in training.

Mr. Stevens: It is true that unions have been usefully involved in training, but in the 1960s any kind of change, including training, was often resented.
The Government have tried to sell the various schemes to the public. Opposition spokesmen have criticised our efforts on television, but we must make people aware of the importance of training within the industries for which they work. People with reasonably well paid jobs in companies whose immediate prospects seem good will not necessarily welcome the idea of being sent on a training scheme, especially one lasting for several weeks. They will have to put in a lot of effort, and at the end they will not automatically receive a pay rise or promotion. If we are to become competitive in time for 1992 we must train people for all kinds of jobs. People must be encouraged to come forward, but they will certainly not be encouraged to do so if others run down the training that is available.
Management training is also crucial, although it has been somewhat neglected in the past. Managers are very busy people in most organisations. Why should they train? They have a job to do where they are, and they may be doing it well. I was pleased to learn that Coventry polytechnic, which is near my constituency, recently set up a diploma in manufacturing management, along with the engineering industrial training board. The course is custom-made, and will have a direct return. Those who have taken part in the pilot scheme have been able to make successful contributions to the companies in which they have been training, even while still on the course.
That, surely, is how training should be seen—as a process which can provide a direct and immediate return, rather than a remote business which may provide an academic qualification. Employers can be overwhelmed by pieces of paper telling them that an applicant has passed this, that or the other. Training must be practical, and it must have the potential to produce a useful contribution to the industry concerned as quickly as possible. That is what all the schemes provided by the Government over the past few years have attempted to achieve. We want to provide

recognised qualifications, but also to make those qualifications useful at an early stage—through the TECs, for instance.
The productivity that is fundamental to wealth and competitiveness must come from all employees, and there must therefore be accountability at every level. Decisions about who should be trained and how that training should be carried out are therefore as important as any other aspect of commercial activity. The measures introduced by my right hon. Friend have begun to move the country in the right direction for the first time. We have a strategy —with Government help and encouragement, we want companies to provide the right training at the right time to meet 1992 and the years that follow. The Opposition have not offered that. They believe that they have a plan, but most of their motion constituted a whinge about YTS and employment training. One sentence suggested that they might have something to offer, but we have not heard about it yet.

Mr. Mike Watson: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate as it concerns a subject that is of direct relevance to all too many of the constituents whose interests I have been sent here to represent. I do not know what world the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) inhabits, nor do I know much about Nuneaton, but he says that people must be prepared to come forward, say that they want training and outline the kind of training that they want. If he cares to accompany me on my next visit to Glasgow, Central, he will find that there is no shortage of people who are crying out for training and for jobs. They should not have to confront all the obstacles that he described that prevent them from getting that training. It is a subject to which I shall return, if I may, in due course.
In making my maiden speech, I should like to say how saddened I was that the by-election responsible for my appearance in the House was occasioned by the tragic death of Bob McTaggart, a man who was not simply a good and trusted comrade; he was a personal friend. Never the sort of man to seek the limelight on his own behalf, Bob was an extremely popular and greatly respected Member of Parliament for Glasgow, Central, a reputation that was earned by his unstinting efforts on behalf of his constituents.
Since my introduction to the House two weeks ago, I have been moved by the large number of hon. Members, from all sides, who have made it clear that they held Bob McTaggart in similar respect. In his maiden speech to the House in July 1980, Bob McTaggart said of his predecessor:
If I can serve the people of Glasgow, Central as well as he did, I shall be satisfied."—[Official Report, 10 July 1980; Vol. 988, c. 799.]
Today I can pay no greater respect to the memory of Bob McTaggart than to say unhesitatingly that I echo those words.
To represent Glasgow, Central is a responsibility that I take on with considerable pride, aware as I am of the great traditions of the constituency, in its varying forms, throughout this century. Today it is genuinely the most multiracial, multi-religious and therefore multicultural of all Scottish constituencies, from the influx of the Irish—dating back some 150 years and continuing to this day—through the establishment of a considerable Jewish


presence around the turn of the century, to the large and vibrant Asian communities of today. The social and cultural mix of the constituency is one which I very much welcome, enriching as it does not just the constituency but the city of Glasgow as a whole.
Although the manufacturing industry for which the city was once renowned is now almost non-existent within the constituency—it is, indeed, a sign of the times that the two largest employers within its boundaries are the National Health Service and Glasgow district council—none the less I am pleased to say that its political traditions have remained largely intact, for it was in 1906 that the constituency of Blackfriars returned George Barnes as the first ever Scottish Labour Member of Parliament. In 1922, as the chest of working-class Scotland swelled with pride at the return of 30 Labour Members of Parliament—names which are quite rightly revered to this day—two represented constituencies which now form part of Glasgow, Central: George Buchanan in Gorbals and, most notable of all, Jimmy Maxton in Bridgeton.
The fact that the then Glasgow, Central constituency returned, on the same day, one Andrew Bonar Law, who just happened to be the Prime Minister, might also be worthy of some note, although my hon. Friends will doubtless thank me for not dwelling on that particular chapter of the constituency's heritage. A rich heritage, none the less, it remains—the heritage of the men who earned the accolade of the Red Clydesiders and who fought to relieve poverty and to improve the living conditions of the thousands who were condemned in those inter-war years—as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said some moments ago—to lives of misery and hopelessness. There could be no more graphic illustration of the density of housing which existed at that time and the conditions that inevitably resulted from it than the fact that the area which today forms one constituency, the one which I represent, contained no fewer than four constituencies in 1922.
From their analysis of the kind of society which produced such conditions, the Red Clydesiders argued passionately for a programme of Socialist reforms—notably the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, within the United Kingdom, which they believed was necessary to ensure that Scots had the ability to decide on matters which were, and are, of direct concern to them.
These principles and aims have a resonance almost 70 years on because, sadly, the levels of unemployment faced and fought by the Red Clydesiders between the wars, and subsequently by their immediate successors such as John Rankin and James Carmichael in the post-war period—whose Socialism may have differed in style and emphasis, although not in intensity—find modern-day parallels which are all too familiar. The city of Glasgow is in many ways miles better, but it still suffers the blight of some of the worst levels of unemployment in Britain today.
As an example, Glasgow, Central currently has the eighth highest unemployment level of any constituency, with an official unemployment rate of 20 per cent. That figure, of course, ignores the various attempts by the Government over the past 10 years to massage, and therefore to distort, the unemployment statistics. The real

figure in Glasgow, Central is nearly 30 per cent., but even on the basis of the official figure it still represents a major social problem for many of my constituents.
The problem, however, is wider. The seven parliamentary constituencies which lie high or low, depending on one's perception of such things, in the unemployment league table, are all found—not unexpectedly—in major industrial cities. Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle each contribute one apiece, but, sadly, the remaining three are all Glasgow constituencies. Thus, the city holds the unenviable record of four of the eight highest unemployment levels in the constituencies represented in this House.
That is the scale of the problem. Much of it, not least in Glasgow, Central, is, sadly, borne by young people under the age of 25. In five out of the six wards in the constituency, youth unemployment exceeds 28 per cent. In the Calton ward, it stands at the horrendous level of 45 per cent. I urge hon. Members on all sides of the House to consider that figure and its implications for a few moments.
During the recent by-election campaign, I had occasion to quote that figure. It was challenged by no less a gentleman than the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). Ultimately, he was obliged to accept its accuracy, which, when one thinks about it, is not surprising, since the figure had been drawn from those supplied by his own Department and the Department of Employment. Yet, as if that was not bad enough, even that figure of 45 per cent. is an understatement of the problem, because in September 1988 the Government withdrew the payment of benefit from youngsters who were unemployed and did not have a YTS place. Since then, thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds have disappeared from the unemployment count.
At that time, the Government guaranteed a YTS place to every young person. It has proved to be the empty promise that many on this side of the House recognised that inevitably it would be. The most recent statistics for the Southside and Bridgeton careers offices, covering the Glasgow, Central constituency, show that 476 16 and 17-year-olds registered for work, yet only 107 YTS places were available. That was a shortfall of 369 places, yet unless these youngsters can show what is euphemistically termed "severe hardship", they will receive no income support whatsoever.
That is the scale of the problem in Glasgow, Central. It is a scandal, and I shall do everything I can, as the Member of Parliament for that constituency, to alleviate it. However, the scope for doing so is limited by a Government whose policies are now producing a school-leaving generation that is largely untrained and unskilled and that is increasingly even without homes and the economic means with which to build their lives. That is a tragic waste of human potential, quite apart from the fact that one of the most obvious methods of combating unemployment—one does not, surely, need to be a Socialist to appreciate it, although you are, Madam Deputy Speaker, a Socialist—is by training and retraining people, by matching skills to needs and by offering every young person what should surely be a basic right—the opportunity of education to the limit of his or her potential.
However, the Government's response has been to cut public expenditure. Those cuts have greatly reduced young


people's chances of getting the education and training that they need. This is certainly not a recent phenomenon in respect of the present party which forms the Government.
The following quotation will, I hope, serve to illustrate my point:
To ask … the Secretary for Scotland, if he will make arrangements for the continued education and training of unemployed boys and girls of 14 to 18 years of age, under the auspices of education authorities in conjunction with the juvenile advisory committees of the Labour Exchanges?"—[Official Report, 12 December 1922; Vol. 159, c. 2574.]
Those words formed a question in this House on 12 December 1922 from James Maxton, then the Member of Parliament for the Bridgeton constituency. It is a matter of record that he failed to get a response to his question, although, typically, that did not deflect him from his course of vigorously pursuing that and many other matters on behalf of his constituents. Today's generation of young people in Bridgeton also want an answer on the provision of adequate education and training, as they do on so many other matters. In 1989, as in 1922, they will get no answer, at least not from the current Government, that will materially change the opportunities available to them for the better.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) so eloquently outlined when he opened the debate, our party does have answers for young people. We shall provide real training, without compulsion, for real jobs at real rates of pay. The day is now approaching when that will become reality.
Many people walk with more than hope in their hearts following the unequivocal message delivered throughout the country to the Government on 15 June. Those results did not begin a trend: they confirmed a trend, and a momentum which will increase in pace until its culmination in the return of a Labour Government. That in turn will lead to the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, which the Red Clydesiders demanded 60 years ago and the people of Glasgow, Central demanded three weeks ago. I eagerly take up the challenge of working with my right hon. and hon. Friends to turn that demand into reality.

6 pm

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this brief debate on training and to congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Mr. Watson) on his forthright and sincere maiden speech and on his clear and demonstrated interest in his constituents. I and all right hon. and hon. Members share his expressed feelings about the sad death of Robert McTaggart, the Member for Glasgow, Central for the past nine years. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that my maiden speech was in the month of July and was on training. I am therefore delighted that he has chosen that subject for his maiden speech, and it gives me great pleasure to congratulate him.
Employment and training are linked. Good training must lead to better employment prospects for people of all ages. In the Norwich travel-to-work area, unemployment fell by 35 per cent. in the past year. Nationally, with the highest-ever number of people in work, with 2 million extra real jobs since 1983 and with 700,000 vacancies, the success of Government policy speaks for itself.
Opposition Members certainly have a hard job if they are to convince the House and the country that they have the right answers on training. I well recall before the 1979

general election their limited and feeble efforts in youth training. I remember the youth opportunities programme. I remember hearing tale after tale of the nonsense that was happening, which would pale into insignificance any roll call that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) could produce. That feeble effort contrasts with the success and the expansion of the Conservative Government's youth training scheme. More than 23 million young people have benefited from that scheme; the Government are spending or investing £1 billion a year, and the number of young people with recognised qualifications is rising. That is all good news and is a tribute to the Government's efforts, particularly in youth training.
The number of young people entering the labour market is declining. We have already heard about the 25 per cent. reduction in school leavers between 1988 and 1993. There are already vacancies in the youth training scheme. At the same time, the Government have to address the problem of skill shortages in every part of the country, including Norwich. Nationally, there are increasing difficulties in attracting qualified technicians. A recent survey shows that some 22 per cent. of firms expect skill shortages to limit their output in the 1990s. We have heard today about the importance of training and competitiveness in our approach to 1992 and beyond. According to the survey, there are also problems with the training of managers, professionals and craftsmen.
I shall make particular reference to engineering, an interest that I hold very dear. In the Norfolk area there are only about 250 YTS trainees in engineering. Unlike Opposition Members, I regard employment training as an increasing success, but it is disappointing that in Norfolk, out of about 2,000 adults involved in the scheme, only five are engineers. Yet the talent and enthusiasm for engineering is there. We have successful school-industry links. Recently, I attended presentations by young engineers, and there is no question that there is enthusiasm for engineering and engineering training, if only we can make a better effort to move away from the present unsatisfactory position.
It is time that right hon. and hon. Members and people throughout the country stopped talking about engineering having a bad image. We have to turn that around and talk about engineering, engineers and young engineers having an exciting future and a good image. That is closer to reality today and is one way in which we can improve young people's prospects and manufacturing industry.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that we are not training all the people we need. I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that a modern training system must be employer-led, because employers are best placed to judge skill needs. It is clear from my own experience and observation that too much training in industry is still short-term, and too often no senior line managers involve themselves closely enough in training. The message shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House is that industry and business leaders must get their act together, spend more on training, put more enthusiasm into training and consider it a good long-term investment, because their record is not good enough. I understand that that view is shared generally throughout the country and is not simply put forward by one political party.
Employers must not place too much reliance on state-run schemes. I have already mentioned the


undoubted success of the youth training scheme and employment training, in spite of the nonsense that we have heard this afternoon from Opposition Members. The new training and enterprise councils, which have been mentioned today, show the Government's faith in local employers helping to run the schemes and to raise the importance of training locally.
The Government have produced two White Papers recently, one of which considers the future of the industrial training boards. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) about the need to raise the standard and quality of training to the level of our competitors overseas. That need has been made more urgent by the rapid approach of 1992. The engineering industry training board has already taken steps to meet that new challenge. I know that it is confident that the board can become self-supporting by the financial year 1991–92. According to the chairman, Mr. Astley Whittall;
the industry will no longer pay a compulsory levy, and therefore will be able to take us or leave us—I intend to make sure our products and services are so good that they will be queuing at the door".
Returning to the role of employers, particularly those in Norwich, I recently chaired a meeting at Laurence Scott Electromotors in Norwich to launch a local initiative to overcome critical skills shortages and the problem of poaching between one firm with skills shortages and another. That problem has become worse in the past few months and years. Local newspapers in Norwich have described it as a "manpower time bomb." That problem must be addressed.
The intention of the group in Norwich is to bring together employers to develop a common training strategy, to identify present and future skill needs and to increase the size of the pool of skilled people available in the area. It is hoped that the Government's new business growth training scheme, which I regard as an excellent initiative, will be involved in and used as part of that strategy.
The inadequacy of our training arrangements is not a new problem. Over the years, unfavourable comparisons have been made with our continental competitors. The problem has been discussed for decades or even centuries. It is a continuing problem, which now has an increasingly European dimension. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister of State confirm that the Government have secured large amounts of money from the European social and regional funds to spend on training? If they have, that is good, because it has helped with certain youth training schemes, particularly in deprived areas. We must welcome any development in Europe that will improve training and access to it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say a little more about that aspect of training and co-operation.
In the history of training—I am now thinking of the opening remarks of the hon. Member of Oldham, West —Labour Governments have failed miserably. According to the Labour party's glossy new policy document, it is bent on repeating old mistakes. Opposition divisions about employment training have already been effectively disposed of in this debate. The Labour party has done the unemployed a disservice by the way that it has set about attacking a particularly good scheme.
The Opposition's attitude to the youth training scheme has been equally negative. It is equally well known, so I do not need to set it out in detail.

Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend said that the Labour party had done a disservice to the unemployed. He may not have been aware of it, but he was echoing the words used by Mr. Bill Jordan of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, who criticised the Labour party's attitude to employment training.

Mr. Thompson: I welcome and agree with that intervention. If time permitted, I could quote many other Opposition politicians who are unhappy about the Labour party's training policy. I share the surprise expressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it should have chosen this subject for debate.
The Labour party's policy document proposes quangos, extra bureaucracy and more centralisation, not to mention subservience to the trade union movement, which exposes its policies as hollow and shallow.
The Labour party's motion is wrong-headed, reactionary and positively prehistoric. I shall be delighted to support the Government's amendment, which shows the way forward for training to help our young people and people at all stages in their careers.

Mr. James Wallace: I join the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) in expressing concern about training in the engineering industry. It is important that an adequate number of able people are attracted into the industry and that standards are maintained. I am sure that the Government will bear that in mind when considering the future of training in the industry following the ending of the statutory levy boards.
I also join the hon. Member for Norwich, North in congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) on his maiden speech and the tribute that he paid his predecessor, Bob McTaggart, who was much liked and respected by hon. Members.
I agree with the hon. Member of Glasgow, Central that one does not have to be a Socialist to tackle unemployment through training and retraining. One must, however, be a Socialist to follow in the tradition of the Red Clydesiders. If the voters of Glasgow, Central were looking for a worthy inheritor of that tradition, judging from the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central they have found one.
I do not wish to take up too much time as other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall therefore try to confine my remarks to one or two points. No matter what the Secretary of State said, I am sure that the response to employment training has not lived up to Government expectations. It would have been more helpful if other Opposition parties and local authorities had tried to make the scheme works despite its warts. Nevertheless, it cannot be recognised as the best possible training scheme available for unemployed adults.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) mentioned the difficulties with employment training experienced by married women. The Minister of State will know that I have made representations to him about the problem in my constituency of the wives of men who spend much of the week at sea not qualifying for the child care allowance that has been made available to single-parent


families. That is unnecessary discrimination. It is all very well for the Minister to suggest creche facilities and the use of distance-learning materials, which I do not dispute might be worthy, but they are less than adequate compared with the proper support provided by the child care allowance. The cost involved is probably minimal compared with the benefit that it would offer, bearing in mind the changing shape of the labour market and the fact that more women will have to be attracted into work.
We should be trying to improve the quality of training. Hon. Members have given examples of schemes operated in other countries. In Sweden, which has a high-quality training programme, redundancy is regarded not as a tragedy but as a challenge and an opportunity. Rather than spending £5,000 per annum per place, Sweden spends almost £13,000. People who have been trained and retrained in the latest techniques and shown how to use the most up-to-date technological skills become a valuable asset when they return to the labour market. Not only do we have the tragedy of unemployment, but we are failing to capitalise on what could be a good and useful resource for Britain.
It is impossible to generalise about the youth training scheme. At the outset, it could have been argued that it was a makeshift method of removing young people from the unemployment statistics, but it cannot be denied that, in many places where efforts have been made to make the scheme work, it has done so. I suspect that its effectiveness is patchy, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central rightly said that the promise of places for all has not been fulfilled. Figures from Strathclyde regional council suggest that in May this year there was a shortage of almost 1,400 places.
There has been misunderstanding or a lack of imagination from the centre about the scheme. Within a local authority area, a place may be available on a scheme, but the distance that has to be travelled to take it up may be vast indeed. Although in theory places are available for young people, often in practice they are not.
The amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and others, which has not been selected, highlights the need to place greater emphasis on the educational component of training. It is agreed among hon. Members and industry that there is a lack of some important skills. I urge the Government to take account of the fact that in an advanced industrial society there will be fewer jobs for 16-year-olds in the basic service industries. Job growth will occur in the professional, scientific and technological occupations, which will obviously require higher educational attainment. Only 32 per cent. of young people in Britain carry on full-time education to the age of 18 compared with 95 per cent. in Japan and 72 per cent. in the United States. We must encourage greater participation in full-time education.
The importance of education must be recognised, which means that there must be a well-resourced education service, not an approach which puts teachers in the category of second-class citizens. We should think about compulsory day release schemes. I have been informed, although I have not checked, that the Education Act 1944 included provisions for part-time education and training for people up to the age of 18, to be implemented as soon as conditions permitted. It is now 45 years later and that must be done. I hope that the Government will seriously

consider providing for compulsory release from work for training, as many young people are not given any training at all.
Over the years, there have been a series of training organisations and a plethora of initials and now we have the TECs, the training and enterprise councils. I welcome the idea that the private sector should take a greater interest and be more involved in training. Over the years, part of the difficulty has been caused by the lack of such interest and involvement. The Government admit in the White Paper "Scottish Enterprise":
Efforts to date to persuade the private sector to take greater interest in and responsibility for training have had disappointing results. Far too many firms take little interest in assessing and training for their own future needs, assuming that supply will always be there to meet demand.
But the Government have gone wrong by putting all their eggs into one basket. As they admit, the private sector has not been at the forefront in meeting training needs.
Will people of calibre be found in all parts of the country? In paragraph 5·1 of "Scottish Enterprise" the Government admit that the concept of locally led training
stands or falls on the willingness of people of calibre to respond to this exciting challenge.
We are afraid that many people of calibre will be so busy running their own successful enterprises that they will not have the time to lead training initiatives. There may be a patchy response and delivery of first-class training throughout the country may not be guaranteed.
It is regrettable that United Kingdom business spends only 0·15 per cent. of its turnover on training, compared with between 1 and 2 per cent. for most of our major industrial competitors. I ask the Government to consider the possibility of local authorities being more involved and to look towards a remittable training tax based on turnover. If a company showed through an auditor's certificate that it was genuinely spending money on training, that money could be remitted to it. I regret the element of compulsion, but only in that way can we guarantee that training is taken seriously.
Training and retraining are important to tap the skills of the unemployed and to allow many of those who are employed to learn new skills and adapt to new technologies so that the United Kingdom is geared to the technological age.

Mr. James Paice: Much has been said about the differences between this country and our major competitors, primarily in Europe. Those differences have been emphasised in terms of expenditure, but I suggest that expenditure is the secondary item and that the primary factor is the difference in attitudes. If attitudes towards training and the culture of training are right, expenditure and investment will surely follow.
Over the years, the attitudes of employers and employees in this country have differed from the attitudes in the countries of our competitors. British employers have tended to see training as a cost rather than the investment that it is. To a certain extent, that has been spurred on by the City demanding short-term returns on investment rather than long-term returns.
The attitudes of British employees have differed from the attitudes in Germany, Sweden and other western countries. There has been a tendency here to demand a high wage on leaving school, probably at the expense of training and almost certainly at the expense of


advancement in years to come. There has been a belief in once-for-all training in the first few years after leaving school, in the expectation that it will lead to a trade for life, but that approach has failed to recognise that advancing technology—to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred—means that people will have to change their jobs repeatedly because of the rapid pace of our economic growth.
Trade unions have tried to protect jobs in outdated skills, without grasping the need for employees to change their skills, often several times in mid-life. That attitude is exemplified in the Opposition's motion. They have concentrated on the 16 to 19-year-olds and have not referred to training throughout the working life, the most critical part of all. How are we to change attitudes?
The Labour party went into the last general election threatening a payroll tax of 1 per cent. to pay for training. That amount has now been reduced to 0·5 per cent., but we are left with the fundamental principle of Socialism, that the state can spend better than individual businesses. This is an extension of the levy system which the Labour party has espoused. If the levy system is so wonderful that the Labour party opposes the Government's proposal to remove statutory training boards, why are there skill shortages? Perhaps this policy is founded on the policy and philosophy of Mr. Scargill, who believes that the only reason Socialism has not worked is that we have not had enough of it, so the more levies we have, the more it will work.
The levy system today, whatever function it has served in the past, is out of date and irrelevant to the needs of industry and the range of training that is required for the ever-increasing variety of businesses in Britain. The abolition of a number of training boards in the past few years has spawned many private training organisations, often co-operative ventures, with many employers joining to provide for their training needs. They can respond quickly, have a common feature in that they are much closer to the businesses for which they work and can meet their clients' needs as and when required.
The investment picture has been changing rapidly. In 1984, research by the Manpower Services Commission showed that there had been an 11 per cent. increase in training activity by businesses over the preceding five years. We do not have an exact comparison in the succeeding five years, but the evidence is that that relatively low increase has been well surpassed.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I agree with my hon. Friend about statutory levies as they apply to most industries, but the construction industry is characterised by many small firms throughout Britain. Surely, without the construction industry training board, which would not survive without a statutory levy, those firms would not have the training and safety provisions that are so badly needed. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that we keep some statutory levy for the construction industry?

Mr. Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that subject: he has put his finger on the one exception. I accept that, contrary to my fundamental beliefs, activity in the construction industry is so different from activity in other industries that we must retain the levy.
According to the labour force survey, the number of employees receiving training has increased by nearly 1 million during the past five years. Much of the changing attitude we have already seen has come as a result of the youth training scheme. It has encouraged businesses to become involved in training. Many businesses that have never had anything to do with training before have taken on YTS trainees, for whatever reason, and from that, they have developed an involvement with and activity in training, which has spread throughout the business.
I have a small criticism of the YTS, which is that the Manpower Services Commission did not act vigorously or ruthlessly enough on the approved training organisation status in weeding out those organisations that were not delivering the expected quality. However, the important point is that we have seen industry becoming more involved. That is the principle behind the training and enterprise councils, which I wholly support. They encourage industrial involvement and encourage business to ensure that the YTS and employment training programmes are delivered locally, based on local needs.
It is necessary, of course, to retain a national framework of standards. The use of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications will be of great value in that. We must recognise that modern training techniques can substantially reduce training time; that is one reason why it is no use pining after the old apprenticeship scheme. Much of that was time serving. It is true that the apprentices learned skills, but modern training technology means that training schemes do not need to run for as many years as they did for the old apprenticeships.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Paice: No, because I know that another Labour Member wishes to speak in the debate.
We must recognise that people still think of training identification and appraisal of a form of criticism of standards. They are not. It is interesting that, despite the furore a few years ago in the teaching profession about the suggestion of appraisal, the few authorities that carry out teacher appraisal have met a wonderful response from the teachers who have been through it. They now recognise that it is a constructive approach to human development, rather than a form of back-door criticism of what they are doing.
If we are to move towards a greater emphasis on training from business, we must first ensure that business from the top understands its involvement. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) mentioned the need for management to become more involved. I remember that 10 years ago, when I was first appointed as training officer to my then company, we embarked on a programme of staff training. The first person who went on a training course was the managing director, and he was followed by the divisional managers. We went down the structure from there. The managers set the example to the rest of the staff that training should go right through the organisation.
One aspect that still causes great concern is the poaching by one employer of another's employee in whose training the original employer has invested. We must consider ways to address that problem, because it is the one obstacle that discourages business from investing in


training. The answer is clear: we must look at property rights and consider whether employees could be asked to sign a contract of commitment of service.
It is commonplace in the United States that employees undergoing a programme of training agree to a period of service as an employee of the company making that investment. That is not wholly unknown in this country. The armed services sponsor people through university and require a certain service afterwards. In football, we hear of massive sums being paid to buy off contracts made for a certain period of employment. There must be fallbacks, of course, so that people can extricate themselves from such contracts for valid reasons, but we must consider ways of dealing with the problem.
There have been a few cases in this country in which people have tried to deal with the problem. In a major court case, Strathclyde regional council—which is not exactly a hotbed of macho Tory management—brought a case against Neil and the court decided that a contract specifying that training costs could be repaid if the employee resigned before completing a minimum period of service was enforceable. That sets the scene, and I wish that we could do far more. It may mean that we must do more to clarify the law in that respect.
The Government have clearly set out a policy throughout the economy over the years of setting business free from Government involvement. That policy has demonstrated its success clearly in consistent massive growth rates and in reductions in unemployment. The evidence is that business is now rightly turning its attention to training. The Government's responsibility is to nurture, stimulate and encourage industry to claw back the lost ground, rather than to interpose themselves between industry and training and to damage what is already happening. We must recognise that the Government's role is to work behind the scenes, rather than to intervene.
That is the fundamental difference between the policies, which I support, of the Conservative party and this Government, and the policies of the Labour party. Business should make decisions about training; it is not a matter for Government. The Government should supplement what business does, and not supplant it, as is proposed by the Opposition.

Mr. John P. Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) on his superb maiden speech, which he delivered authoritatively. He replaces me as the newest Member of the House of Commons.
There is one aspect of training that has not been covered adequately this afternoon, although it was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham). My concern is about the deplorable record of accidents, serious injuries and deaths which has increased dramatically during the reign of the present Government and the previous two. The House should recognise that there is an inextricable link between the quality of training and the industry's safety record. Training is the key not only to our economic future, but to ensuring that we can bring down the tragic incidence of death and destruction in industry, which is to the shame of the Government and which continues to be appalling, especially in the construction industry, to which the hon.
Member for Norfolk, North-West referred. We must tackle that problem and we can do so only through training.
The Government have a lamentable record on training. I do not know how they can turn round now and draw attention to skills shortages and the so-called "revolution" in training to deal with them. The "revolution" is a continuation of the Government's 10-year-old free market philosophy, which is essentially for them to wash their hands of responsibility and to pass it on to local organisations dominated by employers. Yet employers themselves recognise that they need state assistance and state guidance, which employers enjoy in every other major competitor country, to provide first-class training. I received first-class training myself as a building craftsman two decades ago, but such training is now sadly lacking.
In the past few years, I have had considerable direct experience of YTS training and have been involved with many thousands of YTS trainees. The quality of training for the majority of them is unacceptable. They simply gain work experience, and not training as such. The fact that our safety record is so bad shows the appalling level of training. Nowhere is that more noticeable and more significant than in the record of accidents among YTS trainees. That is a direct result of the absence of quality training. When the Labour party forms a Government, we will put an end to that. I ask the Minister to draw the attention of his colleagues to the close link between safety and training.
I conclude by relating an appalling example that I encountered as a trainer in this area. A young YTS trainee set out in the winter month of November on a decorating job and began by painting the outside of a building with a highly inflammable substance by which he became covered during the course of his work. When it came to the morning tea-break at 10 o'clock, before going in to the cabin with all the others for his cup of tea and for something to eat, he stopped by the glowing brazier to warm himself. That move was fatal.
The reason why youngsters die and are seriously injured and maimed in industry is that they are not given adequate training. If that boy had been trained properly, the accident would never have happened. It would never have happened to me, because of the training that I received.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: This has been an interesting debate. With the possible exception of the Secretary of State, like us all being against sin, we are all very much in favour of training. However, that is where the similarity ends, because Conservative Members have risen only to say how much they are in favour of the Government's approach and of the private sector which, according to them, has achieved such miracles.
Although that is what the Secretary of State told the House, the reality is that the right hon. Gentleman is at odds with the head of his own training agency. When Mr. Roger Dawe, the director general of the Training Agency, addressed a conference on the issue of training, he stated that at every level we were towards the bottom of the training league table, whether in education, youth training, higher level skills training or management. He then pointed out that on the evidence of the statistics on


training in this country, far from catching up with our competitors in western Europe, Japan and the United States, we are falling further and further behind.
Indeed, a Government survey which has yet to be properly published—although its author has managed to get his results on the public record—shows that the level of training in this country is frightening in its lack of intensity. Only one third of private manufacturing companies actively train their employees; less than half the organisations in the private service sector train their employees; yet the much-derided public sector trains at least 60 per cent. of its workers. Incredible though it may seem, 14 per cent. of those who are officially designated as "apprentices" or "long-term trainees" receive no training whatsoever. I repeat that, under this Government's training programme, 14 per cent. of trainees receive no training.
I could go on and on about this country's failure in training matters. Conservative Members have tried to say that the Government's present record compares favourably with that of the last Labour Government. However, let us look at the reality in industry—not back in 1979, but as recently as 1982, when skills shortages were reported as a major constraint on output by as few as 2·5 per cent. of our companies. The CBI recently reported that 20 per cent. of companies now experience severe skills shortages that are sufficiently bad as to prevent output developing, and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce has reported that 49 per cent. of manufacturing companies now experience skills shortages.
I welcomed the speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West, who spoke about the construction industry. At the moment the much-derided construction industry training board is training 30,000 people per year. However, the CITB recognises that it needs to raise that level considerably to 88,000 people a year. It is now predicted that at present rates there will be a shortfall of 1 million construction workers in the next 10 years. That deficit cannot be made up by the private sector, whether through the training and enterprise councils system or any other system. Because we have the CITB and the levy system, we have some chance, but not enough, to make up the skills shortages in that industry.
As Conservative Members know, the Federation of Master Builders is hardly one of the Labour party's traditional supporters. The federation has made it clear that it considers that
there is nothing in … recent history … to warrant the view that the end of the statutory based CITB would lead to the creation of a voluntary training organisation which could yield better or more cost effective training.
The Secretary of State must take that message on board. The right hon. Gentleman has told us about the TEC system—the ideological attempt to remove the Government from all responsibility for what goes on—but it is a blind move towards the so-called "market system". Indeed, the head of the Training Agency has referred to the present system of training as a "mixed pattern".
The Opposition know that the private sector is failing the country. We know that the Secretary of State said that there are now over 25 million people in work, but when one looks at the real rate of investment in training, one sees that it is not the £18 billion that the Secretary of State has claimed: it is about £3—25 billion when wage costs and

income support are removed. That represents about £100 per year for every person at a place of work. That is a pathetic indictment of the Government, of what they have done in the past 10 years and of what they are doing now.
The Secretary of State also said that the TEC system was popular with the private sector, but it is not. I refer him to the views of the Builders Merchants Federation —a small part of the private sector—which is deeply suspicious of the TEC system because it feels that it is being frozen out of that system and that its needs for national training are being ignored by the pursuit of long-distance remote-controlled training and by the Government's avoidance of responsibility.
The Secretary of State recently attended a conference organised by the Institute of Personnel Management and the British Association of Commercial and Industrial Education. The head of the Training Agency was also present. Having been severely criticised for the inadequacies of the TEC system, the head of the Training Agency lamely remarked:
You are saying: don't trust the employers—don't trust TECs, please will the Government make it compulsory to train and make it compulsory for employers not to take anyone on until they are 18: that's a surprising message from an employer gathering.
The Secretary of State must recognise that the employers are saying that the TEC system does not work; that it will not work and that it cannot provide the training. The private sector will fail us once again, as it has in the past—

Mr. Tracey: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: No, I shall not give way, because I do not have the time.
I turn now to the employment training system, which the Secretary of State describes as a success. However, the right hon. Gentleman did not go on to say that 60 per cent. of those who are recommended to go on employment training refuse to do so. They refuse to have anything to do with employment training. The Secretary of State may deny that, but those are the Government's own figures. Those are the figures in an "in confidence" Department of Employment document that I am holding now. Indeed, those figures were given in confidence because the Secretary of State does not want them known by the public.
Employment training is failing six out of 10 people and they are not prepared—[Interruption.] Well, I shall quote the figures to the Secretary of State. Referrals from the employment service to the Training Agency, cumulative to April this year, numbered 685,100. However, only 274,900 began as trainees. Therefore, less than 40 per cent. of those who were referred by the employment service made it on to an ET scheme, because those who realise what employment training is all about are simply rejecting it.
I shall give the Secretary of State some other figures. The Building Manufacturers Federation, which is not untypical of many of the would-be providers of ET, established what is regarded as a high-quality employment training scheme. We could debate the merits of employment training at greater length if we had more time, but in this case the employers claimed that they had a high-quality scheme, yet they attracted only one trainee for the 400 places that were available. That federation has told me that there are two reasons why it has only one trainee. The first is the derisory pay available to trainees on


employment training schemes. The second reason is that even on this high-quality scheme, the lousy image of employment training across the nation is such that any self-respecting unemployed person does not want to know about it.
In its magazine "Personnel Management", the Institute of Personnel Management has commented:
The problem, where there is one, is that ET was born of a curious compromise between training and make-work".
That is the reality of employment training.
I turn now to one particular scheme, to the disastrous failure of the Council for Social Aid in Greater Manchester, which affected my constituents. The scheme left debts of £1 million. I hope that the Minister will reply to my points later, but the House should know that that scheme was failing well before Christmas. In November of last year that scheme was falsifying names on one of its projects in Openshaw and I am led to believe that the Training Agency was aware of it. If the Minister was not aware of it, his departmental officials, through the Training Agency, were. The Minister has a direct responsibility for the fact that there were totally bogus names on the list of trainees. Even the numbers on ET are open to fiddle in that scheme and, I suggest, more generally.
Representatives of the Training Agency were well aware in the early part of this year that in some parts of the CSA scheme in Manchester, there were no typewriter ribbons for people taking typing courses and there were no toilet rolls for the trainees or the staff. The Training Agency knew about that. Even if the Minister did not know about it, his staff and departmental officials were aware of it. At that level, he has responsibility for what happened.
There was a cosy little conspiracy at quite a high level in the Training Agency—and perhaps in the Department —to cover up what was happening. The ET scheme was not allowed to fail at such an early stage, particularly when it was set up for 2,500 would-be trainees, but never achieved more than 1,000. The scheme failed because, trainees would not make themselves available. It failed because ET is grossly underfunded and it failed because although it was trying in some parts to provide decent quality training, the trainees did not want to know. The scheme failed and left debts of £1 million, of which £400,000 is owed to the Training Agency. There was a cosy little cover-up which amounts to a corrupt conspiracy to protect the Government's propaganda about ET. The scheme could have been rescued at an early stage in the interests of trainees and the staff. However, the Government were not prepared to allow it to fail at such an early stage.
When the scheme failed and the Training Agency pulled the plug, the decision was not taken by the Training Agency: it was referred to Whitehall. The decision was taken in Whitehall because the Training Agency knew that it had something on its hands which was too big for it to take a decision on its own.
The ET scheme is failing the nation. However much the Secretary of State huffs and puffs, ET is failing the nation and the unemployed. Like YTS, ET is failing our young people in many areas. The Government have no comprehensive view on training. Until they recognise that the private sector unaided will fail in training, until we have a tripartite relationship between Government, industry and the trade unions, we will not have the training

which will give a future to this country—the type of future which our people expect and should expect. Our people will get that future only when there is a change of Government.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): My first and pleasant duty is to congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) on his maiden speech. Many hon. Members will share his sentiments about our late colleague Bob McTaggart, whose death saddened us all. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central made it clear that he takes on a great political heritage on Clydeside and he gave the House a clear sign that he will live up to that.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central on choosing to make his maiden speech in this debate, because it has been an interesting debate on a very important subject. This country lives, in Europe arid in the rest of the world, by its skills, and that has long been so. However, the skills required to compete these days change very quickly. It is no longer enough for people to pick up skills on the way and for them to work out the best way to do things. Training is essential, and so is constant retraining. That much is common ground between the Government and the Opposition.
Of course there are skills shortages; that fact reflects in part at least a vigorous and changing economy. However, it is also a challenge for us all. The Government, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said, are in the middle of a series of radical changes. I believe that YTS has been transformed, particularly since we extended it to two years. It has taken on more young people and has enabled the quality and usefulness of the training to be improved. At present, 386,000 young people are on YTS; historically, that is a very high figure. I can reassure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central that we also have more than 141,000 YTS places available and we can bring more places forward if we need to do so. Sixty-three per cent. of those who complete YTS training now gain qualifications, and that percentage continues to rise. YTS is also very popular with most of the young people who participate in the scheme, and it has proved very valuable to trainees and employers. I believe that it is a vast improvement on previous schemes.
The youth training scheme has introduced proper structured training into sectors where it hardly existed before and to youngsters who have had no training. We are committed to improving the scheme and to making it more flexible and relevant and to increasing the proportion of young people who obtain qualifications. We are working on that. YTS covers an enormously wide area of training. I am glad to be able to say that a YTS trainee plays football for England, and as from a few days ago —as some hon. Members will be particularly pleased to know—another YTS trainee now plays cricket for Yorkshire. I leave hon. Members to judge which is the more important sporting achievement.
The new funding structure this year provides for greater flexibility and response to particular needs and for a larger proportion of the money to help young people with special needs and those with disabilities. That is very important. I welcome yesterday's CBI report on this general subject,


which reinforced the importance of training, particularly for young people. We will, of course, study that report very carefully.
Much of the attention in this debate has been devoted to the Government's employment training programme.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Cope: I have only a few minutes left, so I will not give way.
As far as we know, ET is the most ambitious and largest training programme for unemployed people in the world. It is a massive investment by Government in the future of unemployed people. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, nearly 200,000 people throughout the country now take advantage of ET, and that is a very definite vote of confidence by unemployed people in the programme. It is also the best start for any adult training programme ever launched. That figure of 200,000 is more than three times the number of people who joined the community programme over the same period.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) referred to the so-called drop-out rate. He was really talking about the number of people who say that they are interested in ET compared with those who really start on the programme. That tells us something about unemployed people, as well as something about the way in which the programme is perceived. The employment training programme has received a far better response than any previous programme run by the Government. It is far better than the community programme, JTS and the job clubs. It is producing a better response from unemployed people. That is not surprising, because the programme offers a mix of practical and directed training to participants tailored to meet their individual needs.
Some 18 per cent. of those who start the programme have an identified literacy and numeracy training need; that is one of the special needs which ET fulfils. Particular attention is paid to providing training to meet such needs and about 35,000 people currently receive literacy and numeracy training within ET in some form or another. Twelve per cent. of the new entrants to the programme have long-term health problems or disabilities, which represents a much higher proportion than for any previous adult training programme. Eleven per cent. of people on the employment training programme are from the ethnic minorities and are a significantly higher proportion than for the community programme and higher than the share of ethnic origin groups in total unemployment.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred to the numbers of women in employment. Nearly 30 per cent. of all new employment training entrants are women. Again, that is in line with the proportion of unemployed women. The programme is also making a significant impact on inner cities and we are building on that at the moment. It is helping older workers. About 8,500 trainees aged over 50 have benefited from the programme, and nearly half of them were unemployed for more than two years.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke about the training and enterprise councils. I will not re-emphasise their importance.
The Government have increased their spending on training from approximately £450 million a year in 1979 to over £3,000 million this year. Part of that—bout £300 million—comes from the European social fund. Our Government's spending on training as a proportion of GDP is now higher than that in France, Germany, America or Japan, but it is much less than employers spend, including the Government as an employer. About £18,000 million was spent by employers in 1986–87, and the amount has undoubtedly gone up since then. Of course, that includes wages; they are a legitimate part of the cost of training.
I have quoted those figures to show the absurdity of the Opposition's idea, which they did not spell out today, that the way to solve the training problem is to impose on employers a special tax of about £1,000 million. Opposition Members believe that that will somehow make a colossal difference. That is an absurd claim, and nobody can take it seriously.
It is extremely significant that neither the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) nor his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Stretford made any but passing references to the Labour party's proposals in its recent document. They not only provide for that new tax but, to a great degree, propose to hand back control to unions. Some union leaders have proved to be strong supporters of training, including employment training and so on, but, at every turn, many others have opposed employment training and YTS. We have seen that in our Department and outside. In general, their record would not give us confidence that that is the right way to proceed.
Training is vital for the country and the individuals within it. It would be wrong to take responsibility for training from those who provide the jobs and use the skills. It is right to share the responsibility with training and enterprise councils, which can and will build on the training efforts of employers and others involved, to the great benefit of Britain. I urge the House to support the amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 275.

Division No. 280]
[7.02 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Caborn, Richard


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Callaghan, Jim


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Alton, David
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Anderson, Donald
Canavan, Dennis


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Armstrong, Hilary
Cartwright, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clay, Bob


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beckett, Margaret
Cohen, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Blair, Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blunkett, David
Cousins, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Crowther, Stan


Bradley, Keith
Cryer, Bob


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Cunningham, Dr John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Darling, Alistair


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Buckley, George J.
Dewar, Donald






Dixon, Don
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dobson, Frank
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Doran, Frank
Martlew, Eric


Douglas, Dick
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Meacher, Michael


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Meale, Alan


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michael, Alun


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flannery, Martin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Flynn, Paul
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foster, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Foulkes, George
Morley, Elliott


Fraser, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Galbraith, Sam
Mowlam, Marjorie


Galloway, George
Mullin, Chris


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Murphy, Paul


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Nellist, Dave


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Golding, Mrs Llin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gordon, Mildred
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Gould, Bryan
Pike, Peter L.


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Prescott, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Primarolo, Dawn


Grocott, Bruce
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Radice, Giles


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Randall, Stuart


Heffer, Eric S.
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Henderson, Doug
Richardson, Jo


Hinchliffe, David
Robertson, George


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hood, Jimmy
Rowlands, Ted


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Ruddock, Joan


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Sedgemore, Brian


Howells, Geraint
Sheerman, Barry


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hoyle, Doug
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Ingram, Adam
Snape, Peter


Janner, Greville
Soley, Clive


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Steinberg, Gerry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stott, Roger


Kennedy, Charles
Straw, Jack


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Kirkwood, Archy
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lamond, James
Turner, Dennis


Leadbitter, Ted
Vaz, Keith


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Wall, Pat


Lewis, Terry
Wallace, James


Livsey, Richard
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wareing, Robert N.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Loyden, Eddie
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McAllion, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McAvoy, Thomas
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McCartney, Ian
Wilson, Brian


Macdonald, Calum A.
Winnick, David


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McKelvey, William
Worthington, Tony


McLeish, Henry
Wray, Jimmy


Maclennan, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McWilliam, John



Madden, Max
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Marek, Dr John
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Arbuthnot, James


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Ashby, David


Allason, Rupert
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony





Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bellingham, Henry
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gregory, Conal


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Body, Sir Richard
Grist, Ian


Boswell, Tim
Grylls, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hague, William


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bowis, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brazier, Julian
Hanley, Jeremy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hannam, John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Harris, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Haselhurst, Alan


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Hayes, Jerry


Butcher, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Butler, Chris
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Heddle, John


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carrington, Matthew
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carttiss, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cash, William
Hind, Kenneth


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Holt, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Churchill, Mr
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunter, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Conway, Derek
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Irving, Charles


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jackson, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Janman, Tim


Cran, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, David
Key, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kilfedder, James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dover, Den
Knowles, Michael


Durant, Tony
Knox, David


Dykes, Hugh
Lang, Ian


Eggar, Tim
Latham, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Evennett, David
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Favell, Tony
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lilley, Peter


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forth, Eric
McCrindle, Robert


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Franks, Cecil
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Freeman, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gardiner, George
Malins, Humfrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Maples, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marland, Paul


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marlow, Tony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Goodlad, Alastair
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maude, Hon Francis






Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speller, Tony


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Squire, Robin


Miller, Sir Hal
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mills, Iain
Steen, Anthony


Miscampbell, Norman
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stevens, Lewis


Mitchell, Sir David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stokes, Sir John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Moss, Malcolm
Sumberg, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Summerson, Hugo


Mudd, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thornton, Malcolm


Norris, Steve
Thurnham, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Paice, James
Tracey, Richard


Patnick, Irvine
Tredinnick, David


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Trotter, Neville


Pawsey, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Portillo, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Powell, William (Corby)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Price, Sir David
Walden, George


Raffan, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Waller, Gary


Redwood, John
Walters, Sir Dennis


Renton, Tim
Ward, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Riddick, Graham
Wells, Bowen


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wheeler, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Whitney, Ray


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wilshire, David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rost, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Rowe, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Ryder, Richard
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Sackville, Hon Tom
Yeo, Tim


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shaw, David (Dover)



Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tellers for the Noes:


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Mr. David Maclean and


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Skeet, Sir Trevor

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
that this House noting that Employment Training is the largest and fastest growing training programme for adults ever mounted in this country, and noting the success of YTS in equipping young people for jobs or further education, and the record scale of public resources devoted to training, welcomes the Government's achievements in improving the quantity and quality of training in Britain and the major further steps it now proposes to take to meet the training needs of the 1990's.

Immigration and DNA Testing

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the Government's continued determination to operate laws which are racially discriminatory, as evidenced by their newly amended and consolidated immigration rules and the statement on their attitude towards DNA testing in immigration cases; and condemns the creation and perpetuation of second class citizenship which is the inevitable consequence of such laws.
The motion provides an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House to express their opinions on any aspect of immigration policy. I know that that is the intention of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, I propose to concentrate almost exclusively on one aspect of immigration policy, which is the Government's proposals for the use of DNA testing as a means of establishing parentage.
I choose that one aspect of policy on which to concentrate in this essentially time-limited debate, because it is a new and major aspect of policy, and the proposals for dealing with that new situation, as set out by the Government, will undoubtedly cause hardship and distress to many British families.

Mr. Tim Devlin: [Interruption.] I am a little confused as to why the right hon. Gentleman did not raise this matter, which obviously is dear to his heart, in the immigration rules debate on 20 June or at Question Time on 11 May or on 15 June. Why has he been absent so many times and not raised the matter before?

Mr. Hattersley: I am afraid that there was so much discontent at what appears to have been a wholly irrelevant intervention that I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said. If he wants to raise that irrelevancy again, I shall listen to him and try to answer him.

Mr. Devlin: I was wondering why the right hon. Gentleman did not raise those points on a number of occasions in the last few weeks, such as on 11 May, 15 June or 20 June, when he was here but said nothing. If the Opposition are going to raise these matters in debate, they should have raised them at other times, too.

Mr. Hattersley: I am glad that I gave the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to make his point, because it enables me to say what I was not going to say, but is worth saying. Most of these matters were discussed in the House at 12.30 am during the week before last. I conveyed my personal view to the Home Secretary in a conversation behind the Chair that the introduction of the new rules, our prayers against them, and his introduction of DNA testing were not suitable subjects to be debated in the middle of the night. I also conveyed to the Home Secretary my view that, had the Prime Minister either sufficient courtesy or sufficient courage, she would have answered my letter and justified the policy on DNA testing. Although I wrote to her three months ago, I have not yet received a reply. It is for such reasons that the Opposition took the proper decision, and this entirely legitimate chance, to debate this matter in our time. If the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) would like me to expand on that theme, I would be happy to do so. [Interruption.]
As the hon. Member for Stockton, South would not, I shall say why I want to deal almost exclusively with one aspect of immigration policy. I repeat that the policy proposals on DNA testing, as set out by the Government, will cause hardship and distress to many British families. I want to emphasise that. The men and women who are asking and have asked for the entry of their sons and daughters into this country are British citizens. They are as British as any hon. Member. We are talking not about our attitude towards alien people, but our attitude towards British citizens. They may happen to be Moslems, or brown or black, or have been born outside Britain or be the children of men and women born outside Britain, but they are British citizens. It is citizens in that category against whom the Government are operating.
The new proposals were set out by the Home Secretary in a written answer rather than in a proper statement to the House and, if I can command the attention of the hon. Member for Stockton, South, that is another reason for this debate today. Those crucial proposals affecting civil liberties were not given in a proper announcement to the House, but by way of an arranged written answer to one of the Home Secretary's cronies on the Conservative Back Benches.
My second reason for concentrating on DNA testing is to illustrate the truth behind the Government immigration policies. When DNA testing is examined, all the talk of matching firmness with fairness is revealed as simple humbug. The Government's immigration policy is not based on any set of consistent and defensible principles. It is not based on any effective criteria against which legitimate rights can be measured.
Too often we describe visitors as immigrants when they are no such thing. Too often they are treated as immigrants who want to settle here when all they want to do is to spend a few weeks with their family and friends. The Government's policy towards those visitors and to immigrants is based on the simple principle of keeping the numbers down to an absolute minimum—at least, keeping numbers down to an absolute minium when those visitors come from Africa, the Caribbean or the Indian sub-continent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I hear Conservative Members below the Gangway saying, "Hear, hear".
There was a time in the House when even the Tory party would have been ashamed to espouse such attitudes openly. Perhaps the Secretary of State will take this opportunity to disown such opinion. He may want to take this opportunity to disown some of the speeches made in that late night debate.

Mr. John Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman started his speech, as he normally does, on the basis that the Government are wrong in trying to keep numbers to a minimum. Is he totally convinced that every visitor who comes here is a genuine visitor and that every visitor returns to his home once the time during which he is allowed to remain here has expired?

Mr. Hattersley: Of course I could not be convinced that every visitor is genuine and that every visitor returns to his homeland. What I know as a certainty—it will be confirmed by my hon. Friends who face this problem day by day—is that hundreds of genuine visitors who want to come here for a brief period and who are genuine and honest in their offers to return home at the end of their

alloted span are not allowed to come into this country. That is especially true if they come from the Indian sub-continent.

Mr. Denis Howell: Would my right hon. Friend care to contemplate that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) supported the right to citizenship of Zola Budd? She came here and jumped every queue. She gave an undertaking to remain here permanently, but she has now returned to South Africa. She remains a British citizen and, as far as I can judge from the latest Government proposals, she will be entitled to vote at the next general election.

Mr. Hattersley: Yes, my right hon. Friend has highlighted the double standards that are constantly displayed on the Conservative Benches.
The canard about the bogus visitor is easy to express in the House and it is easy for it to be taken up by our worst newspapers. In the past 25 years I have dealt with thousands of visitors who have come to this country for a brief period, before and after the visa system was introduced. In that time I do not believe that the Home Office, the immigration department or the police have had to deal with more than 25 overstayers. If I am in error I trust that the Home Secretary and the Minister of State will prove me wrong by quoting from their records. Most of my experience relates to visitors from the Indian sub-continent and from Pakistan and often those visitors come here for a specific purpose, be it a family party, a wedding or a religious festival. They have every intention of returning home and do so. It does Conservative Members below the Gangway no credit to hiss about overstayers when they cannot provide any proof. They do so because they find it racially satisfactory to continue the rumour.

Mr. John Carlisle: What evidence does the right hon. Gentleman have to prove that such overstaying does not take place? How does he know that all visitors are genuine? Under what system can he absolutely guarantee that such visitors return to their homes?

Mr. Hattersley: What sort of question is that? How do I know that the hon. Gentleman does not cheat on his tax returns? The only way that I know that is because I rely on the authority of Government and on the agencies of Government to abide by the law. How do I know that the hon. Gentleman did not burgle a neighbour on the way here this morning? The only way I know that is because I believe that the Home Office and the agencies of the law operate properly. I know about the integrity of my constituents in exactly the same way as I know about the hon. Gentleman's integrity and, frankly, I would gamble on them with rather more certainty.
Before the hon. Member for Luton, North made his unsubstantiated allegations I said that there was a time in this House when the sort of stuff that we heard a moment ago would have been disowned by a series of Home Secretaries who genuinely believed in a racially equal society. Today the big difference is not in the attitude of the Home Secretary, but in the attitude of the Prime Minister, who colours, dominates and determines such matters.
Yesterday the Prime Minister was asked in the House to justify the new DNA rules. She did not even attempt to justify their objectivity, justice or fairness. She did not even


give the sort of apologia that we shall hear from the Home Secretary shortly. The Prime Minister simply said that the reason why we have the new DNA rules was that she was not prepared to allow any more immigrants into the country. That is, of course, unless they can buy their way in at £150,000 a time. That is one of the principles of fairness and firmness applied to immigration by the Government.

Mr. Tim Janman: The right hon. Gentleman has denounced the Prime Minister and Government policy. He says that it is wrong to allow people to buy their way in. India is another country which operates such a system and its high commission told me: "The Indian Government decides each application on its own merits and the applicant's financial position or sponsorship would probably be taken into account." There are plenty of countries across the world that, intelligently, operate a qualitative sieve of the immigrants that they allow in.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman may hold the view that if the Indian Government do it, it is bound to be right, but that is not a principle to which I subscribe. The idea that, because the Indians do it, we should do it as well is a new dictum in British parliamentary democracy. The Indians are wrong in that particular, just as we are.
It is important to consider the effect of the DNA rules and what they show us about our immigration system. The new DNA rules will deny entry—it is not a matter of dispute or doubt—to men and women who applied to come here as children, believing that they had a legal right to do so, but whose legal right was denied. We now know from DNA testing that some applicants—the numbers are uncertain—who had the legal right were denied entry on the wrong evidence as examined by an immigration officer and subsequently by an adjudicator and possibly a tribunal. Under the new DNA rules, although a child had the legitimate right to enter this country and although his right was proved beyond any doubt or disagreement subsequent to it being denied initially, there will be no redress for the wrong done. The Government will not make up in any way for their initial error.
I find it indefensible that children who were prevented from joining their parents in this country by what was at best a mistake and who have undoubtedly been done a grave injustice should not have that wrong righted. It is worth repeating that they would be allowed in if they possessed £150,000. Notwithstanding that, I am sure that, as I predicted during an intervention, the Home Secretary will tell us of his determination to be fair in the application of immigration policy. He will not be surprised that we do not believe him. I hope that he will consider the evidence suggesting the unfairness demonstrated by the new DNA rules.
The new DNA rules also highlight a complaint which the Opposition have made during the past 10 years. Men and women who are entitled to enter this country, even under the present oppressive rules, are often kept out because of the harsh way in which these rules are implemented. The best that can be said about the implementation of the rules, the way in which they are used at ports of entry and the frequent attitude of officers towards them, is that the Government are so anxious to

keep one illegal immigrant out of Britain that they exclude a dozen legitimate applicants just to make sure. That is certainly the result of the primary purpose rule, which divides many genuine families by denying husbands the right to enter this country because they cannot answer the negative question.
Those husbands cannot demonstrate beyond any doubt and dubiety that marriage is their only reason for entering this country. I know from my own experience that there are thousands of women in this country who entered into an honourable, honest and lasting marriage who have been denied the support which a Government who talk about the family should provide by allowing their husbands to enter the country.
I saw that, in his egregious way, the Minister, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) shook his head when I criticised the primary purpose rule. All hon. Members know that, if we had said two years ago that many children had been denied entry into this country even though they were related to their parents as they claimed, he would have reacted in just the same way. He would have said that there was no evidence to support that claim, that every genuine child was allowed in, and that every son and daughter whose father and mother were genuinely and properly resident here were allowed in. The Government have been proved wrong over that, and I have no doubt that they are equally wrong in the way that they apply the primary purpose rule and separate legitimate husbands and wives who are party to an honest and honourable marriage.
The obvious conclusion to be drawn from the DNA rules is that the Government cannot be trusted to apply policies on ministerial discretion. When I met the Home Secretary and others to discuss this subject last week, he said that he believed that the best possible protection for the DNA-proven son or daughter whose relationship was once denied, but which had now been incontrovertibly proved, was to allow the Home Secretary discretion to use the compassion which we must trust him to possess. I do not accept that, because I do not believe that the Home Secretary will act with objectivity and compassion, or do anything when presented with individual cases other than use all his power to prevent the individual who has previously been excluded from entering this country.
I shall tell him the reasons for my judgment about his future conduct. I have seen, as have many hon. Members, the Home Office's official working document which constitutes the beginnings of the rules which officers of the Department are to use and apply. It talks about the compassionate entry of, for example, the young man of 20 who should have been allowed in three years ago when he was 17, was told that he was not the son of his father and has subsequently been proved to be the son of his father. When deciding whether he should be allowed into this country, even though he is above the age of 18, the immigration services have been instructed to implement the following rule outlined in the Government-produced document:
It will be crucial to hold this line to ensure the concession remains the exception rather than the rule.
The discretion based on the compassionate agreement that a man or woman should enter is to be calculated by the arithmetic of immigration. What happens if a majority of the cases involving men and women who should have been let in years ago, were turned down but have now proved the legitimacy of their application, come to him


and say, "My father in Britain is frail and needs attention," or, "My mother in Britain is sick and on her own," or, "I am ill and need the help of my parents now living in Britain"? According to his own rules, if a majority of cases are like that, the Secretary of State will say, "Don't worry me about compassion. My rule is that it is crucial to hold the line to ensure that concession remains the exception rather than the norm." To tell us that the rules will be implemented with fairness as well as firmness makes a mockery of the English language and does nothing for the Home Secretary's reputation.
The DNA issue illustrates another point which I have already mentioned: the fallibility of the present procedures for determining the legitimacy of an immigrant's claim that he or she has the right to entry. We have always known that applications for entry which are legitimate under the present rules are turned down at the point of entry. We have always known that the examination of appeals by adjudicators was no guarantee of justice. We have known of those two points because the attitude of port officials when examining an application is unavoidably influenced by the climate created by the Government who employ them. If the officials think that the Home Secretary expects them to be tough or if, having read what is said in the House of Commons, they think that the Home Secretary has neither the inclination nor the courage to repudiate some of the statements made by Conservative Back Benchers, those officials will believe it their duty to use the rules to keep people out rather than let them in.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The right hon. Gentleman talked about arithmetic a few moments ago, and referred to the Prime Minister's reply the other day and an immigration level of 40,000 or 50,000. If the Labour party was in government and had repealed the legislation as it says it would, what would the level of immigration be then? Would it not be three or four times as high?

Mr. Hattersley: I urge the hon. Gentleman to focus on the important point, which is to let in people who deserve to be let in and not those who do not so deserve. For example, I think that under the next Labour Government, more husbands will be allowed in and fewer men and women will be allowed to buy their way in at £150,000 a time. One rule cancels out another. Does the Home Secretary agree with the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) if he is saying that we should establish a number and not worry about the merits or care whether those seeking entry are genuine husbands or dependent relatives? That is one sort of immigration policy, but until the Prime Minister gave her answer on Tuesday it was a policy which not even this Government had said they operated.
The Government at least pretend that they do not add up the numbers, but let people in according to the individual merits of the case. It so happens that the Prime Minister blew the gaff last Tuesday. The hon. Gentleman may be pleased about that. Frankly, I am ashamed to be a citizen of a country in which the Prime Minister holds such standards.
The DNA tests demonstrate that the Government and their agencies made mistakes, partly because of the pressure placed on individuals by the Government's attitude and partly because of the adjudicators. The more

I read of adjudicators' determinations on immigration cases, the more worried I become, not about immigration, but about adjudicators' standards and forensic abilities. Having made the mistakes, partly because of the atmosphere created, the Government—in the judgment of every reasonable man and woman—have an obligation to provide some redress to those men and women who were wrongly excluded two or three years ago and who should now be allowed in. It is shameful of the Home Secretary to defend keeping out men and women who should once have been allowed in—we can demonstrate that—by inventing retrospectively a new rule about the entry of sons and daughters.
When I saw the Home Secretary last week he told me that the rule governing the entry of sons and daughters was always related to their dependency status. That rule has never been written down anywhere in the immigration regulations and I had never heard it expressed until the Home Secretary invented it to defend what he is doing. Until the DNA testing procedure showed that sons and daughters who should have been allowed in were not, the fact of being a son or daughter of a British citizen and under the qualifying age of 18 automatically meant that a person had a right to enter. Such people had the automatic right when they were turned down, so it is wholly unacceptable in a civilised society that the Home Secretary should say that they may have been dependent at the time of refusal but that they are not now, so the Home Office does not intend to make up for the mistake that it made, thereby compensating them for their legitimate grievance.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I want to understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. If someone has been excluded—wrongly, as it now seems—but has established a family in his own country, is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that he should be allowed to settle permanently in Britain with his family, despite having made a life for himself abroad?

Mr. Hattersley: I am. I make no apology for doing so. Governments should be responsible for their mistakes. The hon. and learned Gentleman is hoping to raise the spectre of what is called "paving" in certain circles—that of a man getting in and then bringing his wife and three children—a spectre that some Conservative Members are pleased to welcome. Most of the people who applied to come here did so because they wanted to maintain their links with families in the United Kingdom. Many of them wanted to help elderly parents in their declining years and all whom we have discussed this evening had a legitimate right to enter. The Government cannot deny a person a right which is his in law and then say that, having denied him that right three years ago, they have no obligation to make up for it. The Government are not entitled to say that they may have taken money off a person wrongly but that they do not have to pay it back because that person is well off now.
The Government have made mistakes and they should make up for them now. I have no doubt that if they had made such a mistake in respect of any community other than the Asian community in this country they would have redressed it by themselves. They believe that Asians in general and Bangladeshis in particular can be tyrannised, but they would not do that to anyone else—

Ms. Clare Short: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this reveals the hypocrisy of


the Government in relation to the Helsinki Final Act—the right to family unity applies to some families, but, it appears, not to Asians?
Another example of the Government's double standards is this: before DNA testing became available, someone who was over 18 and who later proved that he had been wrongly refused entry was allowed entry provided that he had not formed his own family. The Government are now going back on that because DNA testing would prove that so many wrong decisions had been taken. So even the Government's former practice is being torn up—they are going backwards.

Mr. Hattersley: I share my hon. Friend's contempt for this continual deterioration of standards in the immigration laws of this country. To put it as kindly as I can, year after year the Government have tightened them up in a way that is intended to exclude rather than to examine on merit.
Of course there must be strict controls and a major policy of immigration which prevents a large number of people who want to enter the country from doing so, but the controls must be based on honest and objective rules which can be defended openly and which are not changed as we go along when the Government see an opportunity to turn the screw tighter and to prevent people from entering who have honourable and legitimate—and previously lawful—reasons for doing so.
I have spoken for rather longer than I intended, largely because of interventions, and I want to give other hon. Members a chance to express their position. I conclude by telling the Home Secretary what we believe should happen.
All men and women who were unlawfully excluded as a result of Government inadequacy, mistakes or incompetence should be allowed into the country now. The idea of allowing the Home Secretary to judge which of them may or may not be allowed in does not seem tolerable, as we have seen the Home Office make such judgments before.
Another issue is that of what should be done about DNA in the future. I shall outline to the Home Secretary what we believe the procedure should be, not all of which divides us from him but some of which differs crucially from the proposals that he has been kind enough to reveal to the House in written answers and from the proposals that we know of from the leaked Home Office memorandum.
First, a man or woman applying for entry to this country as a son or daughter of a British citizen should be offered two alternative methods of proving that relationship. Such people should be allowed what I will call the traditional procedures—arguing on the evidence, supported by interview, that they are related as claimed. I hope that, if nothing else, I have made it clear today that we should like that procedure to be a good deal more objective, exact and dispassionate.
Secondly, such people should be allowed the DNA route of proof as an alternative. Applicants should be allowed to choose which route to follow, and there should be no inference that following one route is a confession of failure. To be precise, no one should think, let alone write down, that if a person was really a man's son he would have taken the DNA test. Both routes should be regarded as legitimate.
Such people should also have the right to switch from the traditional method of interview and evidence to DNA while the procedures are under way, if they want to and if, more importantly, they discover that they can afford to. I hope that the Home Secretary will make it clear in public —I am grateful to him for having made it clear to me in private last week—that if an applicant follows the DNA route and the DNA evidence is conclusive according to the scientists who do the test, that in itself will automatically be enough to ensure the entry of the person who has taken the test.
However, taking the DNA test is, as the Home Secretary knows only too well, only the beginning of the problem. DNA testing can cost, experience suggests, anything from £350 to £600. The figures at either end of that scale are beyond the pockets of many of the applicants who would most need the test. I do not understand the logic or the justice of a system which gives a person the right in law to bring in a son or daughter but prevents him from exercising that right because he cannot afford the proof. That is the very negation of a liberal and free society. It is essential that men and women who cannot afford the necessary proof to establish their legitimate claim be helped to provide the proof by the state, just as other legal systems are subsidised by the state so that other forms of juctice can be obtained by the poor and disadvantaged.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would also be very helpful if people were allowed to have blood tests taken at clinics in rural areas, since otherwise the expense and difficulty of travelling long distances is another disincentive?

Mr. Hattersley: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I go further. I know that one of the great disincentives to immigrants coming here from the Indian sub-continent is that, having turned up in Karachi after travelling overland for a day and a half to have an interview, six months later they get a letter saying that the interview was not conclusive and they have to travel overland again for a day and a half and have another interview. The entire system of examining immigration applications is based on the theory that if we can make it difficult for them to get in, we do so. The day has to come when we end that overt, conscious and deliberate disincentive.
I conclude by saying what it is essential should be said about the cost of DNA testing. It will be intolerable if individual applicants are required to pay their own fees, for that will simply mean that only the rich and never the poor will have conclusive DNA tests. It will be equally intolerable if the cost of this comparatively expensive test is borne by every other applicant to enter this country. That is clearly the Government's intention. In the memorandum that many of us have seen, one paragraph says that the Home Secretary, or perhaps the luckless Foreign Secretary, should make a separate announcement about the cost of the scheme shortly before the scheme comes into effect, to avoid a rush of applications aimed at beating the associated increase in settlement fees.
That can mean only one thing—that the cost of DNA testing is to be spread across every visitor who wants to come here, every husband who wants to join his wife, or every dependent relative. A second conclusion can be drawn, since the Home Secretary said that he has not yet


made up his mind how the fees are to be levied, but I am not sure how I could express that conclusion and remain within the rules of order.
What ought to happen is that, as with the whole business of legal aid, which is intended to help poor families to obtain justice, the cost of DNA testing should be a legitimate charge on the state. If it is not, the net result will be a perpetuation of the scandal that caused this debate. Young men and women who are entitled to be in this country with their parents will be denied the right to enter and live here, because they will not be able to afford the DNA test. That is an abomination and I should be more than grateful, I should be delighted, on behalf of my constitents if I heard from the Home Secretary that not even this Government are prepared to go that far.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
'commends the Government's determination to operate an immigration policy which is both firm and fair, as evidenced by their new amended and consolidated immigration rules; and welcomes the Government's announcement on the use of DNA testing in immigration cases.'.
Although the motion tabled by the Labour party goes wide, quite legitimately, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) confined himself to a narrow illustration of it. I shall range rather more widely, although I shall come to the point that he made. I shall deal also with the general background, and say a word about students, who are involved in the immigration rules changes covered by the motion, and about refugees, as Turkish Kurds are also covered by the immigration rules.
I shall begin by talking about the background, and what I have to say I have for some time hoped to have an opportunity to say in the House. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and I cross swords on several matters and I have come to the conclusion, rather reluctantly, that this is the one on which we probably differ most strongly. As the right hon. Gentleman said tonight, he regards our policy as arbitrary and prejudiced. I regard the Labour party policy on these matters as being composed of one part idealism and nine parts opportunism and muddle, the most charitable analysis being that the Labour party has not thought it through.
During the 1950s, 1960s and the 1970s, large numbers of people arrived here for settlement and in the early part of that period, there was no let or hindrance to that under the law as it stood. The first immigration restrictions were imposed in 1962 and they were substantially strengthened in 1971. Both those measures were strenuously opposed by the Labour party in opposition, but both were enforced and strengthened by it when in power. Whatever the rhetoric of Opposition, the facts, when they have to be faced, are obstinate but clear. This massive change set—and to some extent continues to set—substantial problems, particularly in our cities. The dangers of resentment and prejudice, which lead to blindness and inhumanity, were and still are very great. I defy any Labour Member who represents a city area to deny the truth of that.
Successive Governments of both parties have had to deal with those dangers and there is no difference between us on that. We believe as strongly as any in working

strenuously against discrimination and for equality of opportunity, to encourage members of the minorities—many of whom, as the right hon. Gentleman said, are British citizens—to live in peace and harmony in our cities and to climb, without hindrance or discouragement, all the professional ladders that exist in a free and varied society. I yield to no hon. Member in my desire to see that happen. For example, I am glad that, although the figures are still low, since 1976, when there were 182 members of the ethnic minorities in the police forces of England and Wales, that figure has increased to 1,209. It is still too low, but it is a sign of the progress that we have been making and that we are encouraging.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I am fascinated by the Home Secretary's history lesson. I was one of the immigrants who came to this country, on 15 August 1965. The right hon. Gentleman can hear this from me. What causes most fear and resentment in inner-city areas is, first, inflammatory speeches made by politicians such as the one made in 1968 by Enoch Powell. The second cause is speeches such as those made by the Home Secretary and his colleagues recently in Bradford and Birmingham, in which they lectured the immigrant community about being law-abiding citizens. The third cause is the Government's immigration policy, which denies people the right to family unity.

Mr. Hurd: I shall refer to that 1968 speech, the importance of which I acknowledge. However, the hon. Gentleman is an example of the process about which I was talking. I was not going to refer to him because I do not want to be patronising, but I welcome the day, which will not be long delayed, when the Conservative party also has members of the ethnic minorities as duly elected Members of Parliament. That is part of the process about which I am talking, and it is to be encouraged.
A condition of that progress and of the effort for equality of opportunity, however, is firm and fair immigration control. If it were felt by the majority that that control was severely weakened, I promise Labour Members that the patient work that we all do would be undermined and would fail. That is not a hypothesis—it very nearly happened in 1968. I do not wish to go into the merits or circumstances of that speech or of what happened to the Kenyan and Ugandan Asians, but remember that period vividly. I was working for my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and I remember going to the west midlands with him. I came to the conclusion then, and I hold to it now, that if we are to work seriously for harmony, non-discrimination and equality of opportunity in our cities, that had to be accompanied by firm and fair immigration control.
Of course there should be understanding in individual cases. Of course there should be compassion—I do not shy away from that word. I hope that Opposition Members will say in public what they often say in private—that those qualities are evident in the way in which individual cases are handled by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and his officials. There are arguments about the outcome, but let no one say in public that those cases receive no human understanding.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Minister of State, whom the Home Secretary has just mentioned, refused to stop the deportation of a young man whom he had given


a discretionary right to stay. The young man had been left in Pakistan at the age of 14. Eventually, when he reached the age of 21, it was admitted that he could come to this country, and that has been proved conclusively since. When the Minister refuses to stop such deportations, however, attitudes in the community are hardened. The Government's racist approach forges a new feeling.

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the hon. Lady could substantiate her claim that my hon. Friend deals with individual cases in a racist way, or that there is a lack of understanding of such cases. She does her own cause no justice by making such observations.
So far, I have dealt with the general principle. I have to do that because it is so often neglected, although in my view it is fundamental to bringing about peace and harmony in our cities.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Before the Home Secretary leaves the general principle, may I ask whether he recognises that his stated objectives of firmness and fairness cannot be achieved if the criteria that inform the Government's policy are those spelt out by the Prime Minister on Tuesday, when she spoke of her unwillingness to allow any more people in? How could that possibly constitute a criterion of fairness?

Mr. Hurd: I have read Tuesday's Hansard. My right hon. Friend talked about annual incoming numbers of 40,000 to 50,000 and said that, in her view, that was enough. What she said was hardly a detailed statement of immigration policy.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did not object to our setting up a DNA scheme. Before we get deeper into controversial waters, let me confirm that for some months now we have accepted the outcome of such a test as a conclusive answer.

Ms. Short: So it should—it provides absolute proof of legal entitlement.

Mr. Hurd: I am giving the right hon. Gentleman the answer that he wanted. The hon. Lady must not spoil the party.
There are two conditions for the admission of relatives under the law and the rules. One is relationship, and the other is dependence. Since 1977, 30,000 people applying to come here as dependants from the sub-continent have been refused on relationship grounds, the entry clearance office concluding that they were not relatives as they had claimed. Of those 30,000, 8,000 were lodging a claim for citizenship. That is a separate argument. If they sustained those claims, the question of relationship would not arise and the claims would be agreed.
A further 14,000 are still under 18 and, if the DNA test established the truth of their claims to relationship, they would be allowed in. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook glossed over that point. He gave the impression that we were excluding children who had now been found to have relatives here, although he did not actually say as much. Let me take the opportunity to deny that. The 14,000 who are still under 18 and who were rejected because their claims to relationship were not believed would be admitted if a DNA test established that their claims were correct, because both conditions would have been fulfilled.

Mr. Hattersley: If I gave the impression that the Government would deny children under 18 who had been turned down before the DNA test was established the chance to exercise their rights by means of that test, I concede at once that I was wrong, although I do not think that I gave such an impression. While we are in this ecumenical mood, however, will the Home Secretary confirm that a child under 18 who had been turned down because no proof had been provided in the traditional way would not, if he or she obtained a DNA certificate proving the relationship, be required to return to what is in many cases an over-long procedure? Would that child obtain a certificate there and then, or would he or she have to wait for years?

Mr. Hurd: I gather that the Foreign Office is considering the procedure. [Interruption.] I am trying to give an accurate answer off the cuff, but my hon. Friend the Minister may be able to spell it out.
Of the 30,000 applicants whom I have mentioned, 8,000 may or may not turn out to have relatives. If they reapplied, the answer might depend on the result of a DNA test. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's strictures—I do not think that it makes sense to assume that those 8,000 should be admitted whatever their present circumstances, and whether or not they are in the position described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). Although the law provides the assumption that someone under 18 is dependent, it does not provide the same assumption in regard to anyone over that age. If those applicants were admitted regardless, one of the conditions laid down by Parliament would no longer be fulfilled.

Mr. Vaz: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Hurd: No; I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once.
I will repeat the conclusion that we have reached in case it is not clear. Some of those 8,000 may apply for a DNA test, and may prove a relationship previously denied, but they are now over 18. We propose to proceed on a case-by-case basis. If the applicant has settled into independent adult life, we see no reason to go beyond the existing provisions of the immigration rules. If, however, he is still dependent on his sponsor in the United Kingdom, and if there are compassionate circumstances, we shall be ready to use our discretion as sympathetically and flexibly as possible. It is a difficult decision to make, but I believe that that is a fair and reasonable way of approaching it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I will give way to the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who rose first, but then I mean to get on.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Leaving aside the question of manifest injustice, may I ask whether any Conservative Members have children over 18? Would they be prepared to say that those children should be compulsorily and permanently separated from their families in this way?

Mr. Hurd: When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook brought a delegation to see me, one of his colleagues produced the case, which was not argued out in detail, of an elderly lady from Bangladesh living, I believe, in Tower Hamlets in the east end of London. She was frail


and receiving income support, but it was said that she had, I believe, three sons who had successively had their relationship to her denied but who were doing well in Bangladesh and would be able to sustain their mother and keep her off income support. It was argued that, for the sake of family unification, it would be sensible to admit the three sons. It strikes me, however, that it would be common sense for that frail old lady to go back to Bangladesh where her sons would be able to maintain her. In such circumstances, I would not accept the argument about family unification put forward by the hon. Member for Preston.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Hurd: No, I intend to move on now.
I shall deal briefly with a point that is included in the rules to which hon. Members are objecting because it is an important test of attitudes. I refer to the student question. The vast majority of overseas students are genuine students and they are welcomed as such, but some people who enter this country as students are bogus students who do not come here to study. They come overwhelmingly from countries with similar regimes to our own. It is important not to stop people coming here as students, but we should say to them, "If you want to come here as a student, you should say so from the beginning—you should not come here as a visitor and then slide into being a student." I regard that as a test of attitudes. It is reasonable that the rules to which the Opposition object should include such a provision.

Mr. Hattersley: Does the Home Secretary believe that that rule should be applied to all students or that it should apply just to students of a particular ethnic origin?

Mr. Hurd: I regard it as reasonable where the mischief has arisen. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook wishes to remain blind to the facts he can do so, but if he wishes to study the evidence of abuse, where it exists, and the proportion of it to be found in those countries where visas are required for entry to this country, we can provide him with it.
I turn to a matter about which we are constantly criticised and which may be dealt with by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) because it is very close to his heart. I refer to the treatment of refugees, with particular reference to that part of the immigration laws which deals with the Turkish Kurds. The United Nations 1951 convention defines the test of asylum, the granting of refugee status, as
owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion or nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
That definition is about 38 years old and it was devised for different circumstances, but it holds up very well. The United Nations draftsmen drafted the definition well and the text is still valid in changed circumstances. Those changed circumstances are very much on my mind as well as on the mind of every Minister who has to deal with these matters.
Large parts of the Third world and of eastern Europe are in ferment of one kind or another, and many people are suffering as a result of disorder or poverty. That puts a responsibility on us, as a substantial power and as a member of the international community, to do what we can to help. For the first time, however—this is the change

which has come about—many people who live in those troubled areas have just enough information and just enough money to move to European countries, including this one. That has led to the new phenomenon of middle men. We saw it with the Tamils a few years ago, and we are beginning to see it again with the arrival of the Turkish Kurds. Middle men go to such people and gull them into parting with part of their savings in order to come here or to other European countries. They promise that it is all fixed—that when the people arrive they will get a job and a house and that it will be easy.
In the face of that change, which may continue for a long time, the question that should be argued through in the press and also in this House is whether we should stick to the 1951 convention and the definition that I quoted, or whether we should enlarge it and say that people unfortunate enough to live in countries less peaceful and prosperous than our own should for that reason be admitted. The 1951 convention provides—and we honour it—that every request for asylum should be individually examined. I believe that it is right to stick to the 1951 convention. Again, I believe that it is right to be flexible in individual cases and to make use of the right that I have to grant exceptional leave to remain in this country.
I should like to make the point—it would be interesting to have the Opposition's view on this—that if everyone who asked for asylum were to be admitted, as some press criticism comes very close to urging, the loophole in immigration control would be so wide as to amount to a drastic weakening of our immigration laws. [Interruption.] I have read a good deal of comment in the last few weeks which comes very close to advocating such a policy. [Interruption.] I have read consistent advice to the effect that we should be very much more lax, that we should move beyond the 1951 convention and its definition, which I have quoted, and be much more sympathetic to admitting people who come here not because of any well-founded fear of persecution but because they come from a disorderly or poverty-stricken part of the world. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would deny that.

Mr. Hattersley: Until his last little flourish, the Home Secretary was wisely redefining his original assertion out of existence. As he wishes to pursue the case, I ask him in terms who has suggested that a person should have the right to enter this country simply because a man or woman designates himself as a refugee, and who has suggested that poverty should be one of the criteria for refugee status?

Mr. Hurd: There is a raft of press cuttings suggesting that in the context of—[Interruption.] I am not saying and I have never said that the right hon. Gentleman has advocated that at any time, but I am trying to coax him into a little strictness of expression about these matters, which I believe to be necessary.
Between May and the time when the visa regime came into effect on 22 June, 3,700 Turks asked for asylum in this country, 140 of whom went back without waiting for examination because they found that the conditions here were not as they had expected them to be. That is not a characteristic of a genuine refugee. So far, 171 have been interviewed, 15 of whom have been granted asylum, while 49 have been granted exceptional leave to remain and 23 have been refused asylum and removed. More than 77 are still in this country and our initial view is that they are not


genuine refugees. I give those figures to show the scrupulous nature of the individual examination of such cases. All those who asked for asylum have been or are being individually examined.

Ms. Short: Those figures are interesting, but that is the first group of people who actually got in. Some of them have been found to be genuine refugees, and they have been treated accordingly. But has not the Home Secretary now changed the procedure with the result that absolutely genuine refugees can no longer get in? That is our complaint.

Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with the hon. Lady, but if she wishes to develop the point, the Minister of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) —will deal with it later. However, I do not believe that that is the case.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concern about the same point which has been expressed on behalf of asylum seekers who have gone through the appeals procedure and have then been sent back to their country of origin. A case involving four Tamils is currently being sponsored by Amnesty International, and that case is being dealt with. Will my right hon. Friend consider that point carefully? Without fully exhausting the appeals system, we may be returning to their country of origin people who could be regarded as being in moral and political danger in that country. There is clear evidence in a few cases that people have been persecuted on their return to their own country.

Mr. Hurd: I do not accept that point. I hesitate to say anything more because the matter is still before the courts, but I do not accept that we acted improperly in any way or in a way that was contrary to our obligations.
It is perfectly understandable that people should have expressed concern about the fact that some of the Turkish asylum applicants were being—and some still are—held in prison. I share the concern about that. At the peak, some 200 were being held in prison. Now there are 59 people being held in prison and 100 more in the accommodation provided for detained immigrants. The examination of their claims is being given priority. The alternative is to let into this country people who have no particular links here, and there is no particular reason to think that we would ever see them again if we did. That is a difficult choice for officers to make in individual cases. I very much hope that we can bring that episode to an end quickly now that the visa regime is in place.

Mr. Janman: I applaud the measures that the Government are introducing with regard to immigration from Turkey, but how will my right hon. Friend deal with the situation in future if Turkey's membership of the European Community is successful?

Mr. Hurd: Without trespassing on the territory of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, I can say that that problem is a little way off.
I will give the House the latest general figures on refugees. Last year, we received 5,100 applications for asylum and 3,700 decisions were taken. A quarter of those applying were accepted and 55 per cent. were given exceptional leave to remain. That shows the hon. Member

for Ladywood the pattern. The rate of applications this year is about double that for last year. By the end of June, we had received about 5,000 applications.
Returning to the basic problem which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook set and which was illustrated by the interventions in my speech, it is not enough for the right hon. Gentleman, when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), to say that he is in favour of immigration control, but that everything has to be considered on merit. We have to proceed by way of rules. Since I have had to study their attitudes, the right hon. Gentleman, his predecessor, and the Labour party have said loudly, particularly during elections—the right hon. Gentleman has also done so today—that they are strongly in favour of immigration control. Then, every time a decision comes up, every time a loophole identifies itself, and whenever any single category comes under discussion, they say that the Government should give way and that admission should be permitted.
That is not a possible way to proceed. It is possible to say that the numbers should be greatly increased and that the categories should be greatly relaxed, but it is not intellectually coherent or respectable for the Opposition to say that they are strongly in favour of immigration control and that they accept that harmony in our cities depends upon it, but that in every individual case they will have nothing to do with enforcing the rules.
I understand the short-term calculation which has led to those attitudes case by case. Control is bound to be unpopular with those who are disappointed by individual decisions. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I come up against that time and again. We are bound to disappoint people in particular categories. The people of all races in our cities who benefit from strict control are hardly aware of that benefit, but such is life.
Administering control is a thankless task. I do not share the sneers and snide remarks that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook devoted to those who have to administer the controls. I readily admit that I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State are fair game, but it was grossly unfair to speak in that way of the immigration officers. They do a thankless job but it is a necessary task. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman wants the National Front to triumph in his constituency. The National Front had no candidates at all in the last election. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman wants to see in Britain the changes in public opinion which sent six German MEPs representing anti-foreigner far Right parties to the European Parliament, and a similar number from France. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman wants that, but his attitude towards immigration control would bring that about if it were realised. It would cause suspicion and resentment, and plenty of people are ready to leap on that bandwagon.
My hon. Friend and I will continue to apply a strict but fair system of control, not because we are prejudiced or inhumane, but because we believe that control is needed if all the people who live in our cities are to live together in tolerance and decent harmony.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. It will be evident to the House that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that we can have very brief speeches.

Mr. Peter Shore: The Home Secretary's speech ranged very widely and it is tempting to follow him, but because I am aware of the brevity of the debate, which has been supplied by the Opposition out of their own time, I shall pursue the matter of most immediate concern to myself, and probably to most right hon. and hon. Members in the House this evening—DNA tests and the so-called over-age reapplicant. Those are people who originally applied for entry certificates when they were children, who were refused because the entry clearance officers were not convinced by the evidence of their relationship to their parents, who have subsequently been vindicated by DNA tests and who are still to be denied entry certificates on the ground that they are now 18 and not dependants. I believe that a grave injustice has been done to them and their families, and instead of being remedied, that injustice will be perpetuated by Government policy.
Before I deal with that major theme, I want to discuss two important but lesser matters relating to the written answer given by the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on 14 June and to remarks made by the Minister of State in the Adjournment debate on 21 June.
My first question concerns the scheme to be introduced later this year for organising DNA testing on a regular basis. In his written answer on 14 June the Home Secretary refers to
the implementation of a Government scheme later this year in relation to first-time settlement applicants".
Why does it apply only to first-time settlement applicants? Certainly DNA tests will be a valuable and conclusive proof of relationships when claims made on behalf of first-time applicants are in dispute. But the Home Secretary surely knows of the heartache and grievances felt not by first-time applicants, but by those who may have applied several times before, who have exhausted at least once the whole protracted appeals procedure and who have still been turned down. Why should they be excluded from the presumably faster and cheaper DNA testing scheme that the Government are to introduce? I hope that the Home Secretary or the Minister of State when he replies to the debate will answer that question.
My second question refers to the cost of DNA testing. The cost is heavy. My information is that a man and his wife with a family of three children will face a bill of some £2,000 for DNA testing. In his written answer the Home Secretary appeared to recognise that, when he said that it was necessary
to strike a balance between not imposing too great a burden either on the individual applicant or on the taxpayer".—[Official Report, 14 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 463—64.]
That clearly suggests a scheme in which there would be a contribution from public funds as well as a fee charged to applicants.
However, in the Adjournment debate of 21 June, the Minister of State said:
We made it clear from the outset that any DNA scheme will not be funded out of taxpayers' money. Our policy is that the cost of the entry clearance process should be met by the applicants themselves rather than by the taxpayer.

On the face of it, the Home Secretary and the Minister of State seemed to be saying different things, but the Minister of State continued:
We recognise, of course, that the tests are expensive, particularly where several members of the same family are applying."—[Official Report, 21 June 1989; Vol. 155 c. 472.]
Can we get this clear? Is it the Government's intention that a small family will have to meet the whole cost of the DNA test whereas a large family will be assisted by the taxpayers' contribution to the DNA bill? I hope that the Minister of State will clear that up when he replies to the debate. Better still, I hope that he will agree that all the cost should be borne by the taxpayer. Most applicants come from poor families, and it is wrong that children who have a right to join their families should be denied the opportunity of a DNA test simply because their parents cannot afford it.

Ms. Short: DNA testing appears expensive, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware how expensive existing procedures are. Our staff in the sub-continent are kept at much expense and provided with housing, so there are potential savings in using DNA. It is a cheek for the Government to say that people must pay for DNA tests when it is likely that they will lead to the Government saving money. Instead, the Government will extract more money from poor people for exercising their legal rights.

Mr. Shore: Savings may be made, but we are not in a position to say definitely. It is intolerable if people who are entitled to a DNA test, in the firm belief that it will provide the necessary evidence to join their parents and obtain an entry certificate, are unable to do so simply because they do not have the money. We surely cannot justify such a position. The analogy by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) with legal aid for poor people who cannot afford our system of justice is surely applicable in this case.

Mr. Lawrence: Is not the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that it is iniquitous that people who cannot afford to come here under their own steam should not be subsidised by having their fares paid by the British taxpayer? Is that not the same argument?

Mr. Shore: I do not think that it is; that would carry the issue to a point that I would not accept. The argument about separating children from their parents because they do not have the money to provide the necessary proof cannot be accepted by any sensible and civilised person who holds the values that should be predominant in our public life.
My main concern is about an applicant being refused entry as a child whose relationship is proved by a DNA test but is over 18 when the new evidence comes to light. Clearly, in such a case a great injustice has been done. I know of many cases in my constituency where the husband has been separated for years from his wife and children because documentary evidence has been judged inadequate. I also know of cases where one member of the family has been separated from his parents and brothers and sisters because, while they have been given entry certificates and come to the United Kingdom, he or she has been denied entry on the ground that in his or her case the evidence is unsatisfactory.
I have no doubt that in most cases those who grant or refuse entry certificates, the adjudicators and the other bodies to which those who are refused entry appeal, are


careful and conscientious in their work, but apart from human fallibility we all know that Bangladesh in particular and the Indian sub-continent in general are societies that are under-documented for the purposes of immigration control. The question is what should be done to remedy that injustice, even though the injustice was unwittingly committed.

Mr. Hind: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shore: No, I will not; I must finish.
In his written answer on 14 June, the Home Secretary said, and he restated it this evening:
In many cases over-age applicants are likely to have settled into independent adult life and may also have married and established a family of their own overseas and I do not propose to waive the requirements of the rules in these cases." —[Official Report, 14 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 464.]
Those cases, of course, will include many people who were wrongly refused entry clearance when they first applied. This is a harsh and unfeeling decision. When an injustice has been committed, and when that injustice has been proved by the results of DNA testing, the onus is on the Government to remedy their mistakes and to redress grievances.
I did not understand from the figures given by the Home Secretary how many people will be involved. Perhaps the Minister of State can give a clearer statement about the number of people over the age of 18 who will be eligible. But numbers are irrelevant to the issue of proven injustice. That injustice should be removed, and it can be removed only by giving the entry certificate that was previously refused or by offering a substantial sum in compensation for the hardship caused to the individual concerned and his family.
When considering that question, Home Office Ministers appear to have omitted two immensely important considerations. The first is the strength of links of families from Bangladesh and the Indian sub-continent. Our family structure in Britain is becoming increasingly atomised, with the physical separation of parents from children once they reach adult years and each adult child establishing his separate residence. Families of the sub-continent are very different. Different generations live together; adult members of the same family, even when married, often live with their brothers and sisters and parents or remain in close proximity to them. It is not enough, therefore, to say that once the child has ceased to be financially dependent on his parents it does not matter if they are compelled to live thousands of miles apart for the rest of their lives. It matters enormously. The second factor that should not be overlooked is the adverse affect on the ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom and on our progress towards the fairer system that we all want.
I conclude what was meant to be a brief intervention by saying to the Home Secretary that I seriously hope that he will reconsider DNA testing, but not in the aggrieved spirit that he showed in his speech tonight. I hope that he will have the humanity and courage to come back to the House with a revised decision.

Sir John Stokes: You have asked hon. Members to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall be.
The right hon Member for Birmingham Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was rather churlish, as he often is. Being his near neighbour in the area, and having known the people whom he represents for some time, I found it astonishing that he did not once mention his countrymen.

Mr. Hattersley: We will only begin to make progress on this subject when people such as the hon. Gentleman realise that the Moslems in my constituency are my countrymen. That is the crucial division between Conservative and Labour Members.

Sir John Stokes: I shall not comment on the speech made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), but it was good to hear him speaking again. We all know what an English patriot he is and we remember his stance on the Falklands war. We only wish that we could hear his views on Europe given from the Front Bench.
It is extraordinary that the Opposition have again tabled such a motion. Anyone listening to speeches by Opposition Members would imagine that we are being unduly restrictive in our rules of entry. If one were to go outside this place and ask someone in the street, "Is that true?" they would say, "No, over the past 25 years this country has been extraordinarily generous in letting many people into this country, some of whom have done very well, and how glad we are about it." We have allowed many people into this densely populated island, with all the pressures that that caused, and about 40,000 or 50,000 people are still allowed to come here every year. Surely common sense says that there must be strict immigration controls, in the interests not only of the indigenous population but of immigrants.
We must control immigration, as it says in the rules, so that visiting students do not overstay and illegal immigration is curbed as far as possible. We must control the plea of marriage to support entry into this country because of the danger of it being used for bogus reasons. We must be careful not to let in people who claim to be refugees but are not really so. In a notorious case some time ago, some clerics made fools of themselves over a man who was not a refugee and went back to his country.
The Opposition do not appear to have a clear policy, except to say, "Let them all come in." They are saying the same thing about the millions of Hong Kong Chinese.

Ms. Short: We are not.

Sir John Stokes: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on making this change to the rules which will be of benefit to everyone in this country. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) will let me say a few words. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) said on 20 June.
Good though the changes arc, they are too late."— [Official Report, 20 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 293.]
In the past 25 years, we have allowed hundreds of thousands of immigrants into this small island so that we now have ethnic minorities of several million people and in some cases, as we all know, their birth rate far exceeds that of the indigenous population. This is primarily a problem for England, as the other countries in the United Kingdom have much smaller immigrant populations.
Why are we English Members of Parliament here today? I ask that question of the Opposition, too. Are we not the trustees of this beloved England for posterity?


What is the future of our country to be in another 25 years, even if all immigration is stopped tomorrow? What will be the effect on our religion, morals, customs, habits and so on? Already there have been some dangerous eruptions from parts of the Moslem community. Having served with the Moslems during the war, may I say that I greatly admire many of them and their religion. I also very much like the letter which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office wrote to Moslem leaders and which was published in the newspapers today. It is foolish to ignore the problems and the fears that those dangerous eruptions engender among the ordinary people whom we are supposed to represent.
We must not allow our feelings of guilt over our treatment of immigrants to cloud our judgment. We in England are a gentle, kind, tolerant and peace-loving people. We have already absorbed large numbers of newcomers. Except occasionally, there have not been the riots and bloodshed that some people prophesied. The burden of receiving and coping with these newcomers in our midst has fallen not on the intellectuals, Labour Members of Parliament and others of that ilk but on ordinary English working-class people. Surely they are entitled to a voice here.
Vast changes have been made in the cities because of the large numbers of immigrants living there. The local English people were never asked about this. They never had to vote on it. They must have views about the future of this influx. They look to us to safeguard their position. Everyone here—immigrant or non-immigrant—wants to safeguard our position. As I said, fortunately we have not had much bloodshed or rioting, and relations generally are good, but as the figures on those who are still coming in are published, more and more people are starting to say, "Will this go on, or can we say that enough is enough?" This is a small attempt to have a little more control, and very wise it is. It should be welcomed by everyone in the House and outside.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Home Secretary began his speech somewhat censoriously by suggesting that the Labour party was using immigration issues in an opportunistic way and then, to justify his Government's policy, reiterated the view that racial harmony depends upon a firm, fair immigration policy. It is by his tests, of firmness and fairness—especially fairness—that it is right to judge the proposals on DNA profiling. In their present state, the right hon. Gentleman has not resolved the doubts about their application. I do not believe that they meet the test of fairness.
The aim in testing only first-time settlement applicants is to avoid the possibility of disputes which, in the past, have been protracted and troublesome to immigration authorities. The repeated application cases most require the assistance of DNA testing. I should like to hear from the Minister of State why he proposes to confine the use of DNA testing in this way. Is it simply on grounds of cost?
Another issue, which I hoped that the Home Secretary would resolve, concerns how the scheme should be funded. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) drew attention to the apparent contradictions between the statements made by the Minister of State and the Home Secretary on the extent to which there was to be

public funding of DNA testing. There appears to be some intention that certain categories of individual should be assisted by the taxpayer, but it is possible to interpret the Minister's utterances as meaning that the cost is to be borne by all immigrants. That would certainly not be an appropriate or fair test. If the Minister can clear up this point now, I shall be grateful to him.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): It might be convenient to the House if I clear up that point, which was raised also by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). There is no intention that the taxpayer should pay any part of the cost of DNA tests. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have said that many times. The only exception lies in the possibility of legal aid for DNA tests. We have said many times that, if we introduced a general scheme for DNA tests—as we are proposing to do on a voluntary basis—the scheme's cost would not in any way fall on the taxpayer.

Mr. Maclennan: The whole House will have been shocked by the Minister's intervention. It is clear that the system cannot be fair unless there is some financial support from the taxpayer. Undoubtedly, the taxpayer will save considerably through the use of DNA testing rather than the alternative methods of verification which are presently employed and which involve searches and expenditure, especially in Bangladesh and on the Indian sub-continent. It is clear that DNA testing can operate only when rich or relatively rich applicants seek to employ it. By no standard can that be regarded as fair.

Mr. Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: This is a short debate and many hon. Members with major constituency interests wish to speak, so I shall not give way.
DNA testing can prove, almost beyond peradventure, the paternity of applicants. Should this system be available to those who, it transpires, have been refused entry to this country but are now over the age of majority? Here again, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the situation. The Home Secretary spoke of the importance of there being rules in giving the assurance of fairness. In respect of this important issue—we have not yet been told precisely how many people are estimated to be affected by it—the Home Secretary is saying—

Mr. Renton: Eight thousand.

Mr. Maclennan: In that case, this is almost a de minimis problem. The question must be answered: what are the rules? It is clear from what the Home Secretary said that it is to be a wholly discretionary operation. By his own test, we should have rules if we want to instill a sense of fairness.
A number of criteria may be prayed in aid by those who wish to argue compassionate grounds, which have been referred to in another place by the Minister's colleague. There are wide circumstances in which it may be possible to argue a compassionate case, but equally, it is possible that those could be construed extremely restrictively to deprive the offspring of those entitled to live here of the right to join their families. It is incomprehensible for a party in government which proclaims the virtues of family life to argue in that way. It will be incomprehensible to


many fair-minded people that people whose right to be here can now be established will be denied that possibility because of an exercise in discretion by a Secretary of State.
I am afraid that the great opportunity offered by the perfection of this technique has been missed. There was an opportunity to put an end to much of the misery and uncertainty involved in establishing paternity and family links, which flow from a lack of documentation, especially in the Indian sub-continent. It must be a matter of deep regret to those who wish to see racial harmony fostered and sustained by a fair immigration policy that the Government have thrown away so cavalierly this great opportunity.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I want to begin by saying to my hon. Friend the Minister that he probably has the most unattractive job in the whole Government. He is confronted daily with cases of human misery in which he has to take extremely hard decisions, not only on the basis of each particular case, but on the basis of how it fits into the general framework. Men and women all over this country and around the world are accountable to him and are busily engaged in trying to interpret the wishes of this place and of the Minister against a background of similar heartbreak and difficulty. I pay them tribute for the way in which they carry out that task.
I have no personal experience of being an immigrant or a would-be immigrant. I was fortunate enough to be born, strictly speaking, a cockney, and I have never had any doubt about my eligibility to be a British citizen. However, that does not mean that one cannot experience some of the difficulties vicariously. When I was working at Conservative central office, I was the director of community affairs for four and a half years. One of my tasks in that interesting period was to extend throughout the Conservative party mechanisms whereby members of that party could become far better acquainted with the new citizens who had arrived from different parts of the world, about whom, in their ignorance, many members of the party were anxious and towards whom they were hostile.
Ignorance of the law may be no excuse, but in matters of personal relations, there is no doubt that ignorance of custom, language and religion is often a reasonable excuse for feeling strange and, because of the way in which human nature works, consequently feeling condemnatory in one way or another. I believe that the work we did then played a small part in the creation of a wider understanding within the Conservative party—

Mr. Jim Marshall: It has failed here.

Mr. Rowe: We were more successful in some parts of the country than in others. I believe that that played some part in changing the climate of opinion. However, there is still far too much prejudice in this country. It is noticeable in many statistics and in the accounts people give to Members of Parliament of the way in which they have been treated. One must, of course, always be extremely careful about the natural tendency of those who belong to a minority, whatever it may be, when they do not get what they want, to assume that their failure to do so is directly attributable to their membership of that minority, when

that is frequently not the case. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that there is still too much prejudice and too much difficulty for the minorities in climbing the ladders which at least now exist for them to climb.
Such difficulty is one of the ingredients in the unfortunate riots and protests over the Salman Rushdie book. I believe that the law on blasphemy should be repealed rather than extended. It is flouted to the point where it is absurd to retain it and it is therefore unworkable. It is also philosophically unsound, because it is rooted in theocracy and I believe that theocracy is a recipe for bad government and oppression. A theocratic Government are very different from a society under God.
It is perfectly clear that the pressures are made worse when many people come in at great speed and, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, there is no division between Government and Opposition about the need for immigration controls. I sometimes think that hon. Members of all parties are rather like small children who, behind the security of their garden gate, poke fun at other small children and then run back into the security of their front hall because they know that the children will not cross the fence that has been erected. That fence of immigration control has been erected by both parties in this House equally. It is salutary for Opposition Members to remember the large part played by their own party in building those walls.
I should like to distance myself considerably from the remarks of my respected and revered hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), who echoed an argument which I hope is dead, or at least nearly dead. In an ideal world, there would be no frontiers and people could move from one part of the world to another without let or hindrance. Indeed, in our favoured corner of the world that is exactly what we are constructing. This debate has already shown some of the difficulties that we shall encounter if we are successful in that construction. Clearly, this is not an ideal world, and it is essential that we have a firm and fair immigration policy.
In the troubled and worrying debate about Hong Kong, it is important that my hon. Friends, Ministers and others should be sparing in their use of the argument about millions of people; if we are to be a great deal more generous about the numbers of people from Hong Kong whom we eventually receive into this country—and I believe that we have a duty to be generous—that argument will have done no good to those people's chances of having a proper reception here. We should not use massive figures such as 3·5 million or 5 million people, because that will stir up anxieties that we should not invite.
I seek the reassurance of my hon. Friend on one element of the policy. I share the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) who, in November of last year, pointed out his anxiety that married couples should be reunited as quickly as possible when it is proved that they have a right to be together. It is a flaw in our immigration policy that, where people have established a bona fide right to be together, they can then be denied that right by administrative procedures stretching over many years.
Do I understand from what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that, if children below the age of 18 are proved by the DNA process to have family bonds, there will be no question of the procedures being extended once these children become more than 18, and


that their age will not then be used as a pretext for excluding them? If that were the case, it would be grossly improper. It is easy to discover that, by sheer inadvertence or lack, somebody's case has been extended for two or three years by the administrative procedures and that that person has somehow fallen foul of his or her right to enter this country. It is easy to turn that into a matter of policy. I stress that that would be a shabby way in which to proceed.
In conclusion, I turn to the other side of the coin. Unless something has happened to her aeroplane, my wife is in Madras at the moment, where she is working for some weeks with a skilled paediatrician who is still in Madras because of his Christian belief that he has a duty to return to the people of Madras the benefits that he has enjoyed. He is the only member of his class in medical school to have remained in India. That is a commentary on the whole business of immigration. The fact that some countries have too great a readiness to admit foreign nationals can easily lead the home country to become emasculated. That is undesirable—

Ms. Gordon: rose—

Mr. Rowe: I shall not give way, as I am just about to end my speech.
It is wholly appropriate to have a firm and fair immigation policy. Where our techniques have improved to the point at which we can remove doubt speedily, I believe that we should turn that speed to the advantage of the applicant and not allow the adminstrative procedures to drag out.

Mr. Keith Vaz: The Home Secretary was hopelessly wrong to make a connection between immigration policy and good community relations in our inner-city areas. If he needs a connection, he should study very carefully the speech by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) because that was the kind of speech which causes great unpleasantness and distrust and also causes a great deal of damage to good community relations in Britain. That speech echoed sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) in a short debate last week. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will distance himself from the comments which have been made by his two hon. Friends. It is important that in their official policy the Government make it absolutely clear that the extremist statements that we have heard are not part of Government policy.
The Home Secretary's written reply to a parliamentary question on 14 June which set out the Government's policy on DNA testing is a recognition of the success of such tests. As this is our first debate of this length on the subject, we should pay tribute to the work of Professor Alec Jefferies of Leicester university and others who have worked in this area for several years. We should also place on record our appreciation of the work of groups like the Divided Families Campaign, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service which have worked very hard urging the Government to initiate pilot studies and to publish their report.
Three years have passed since a press conference was held on 10 January 1986 at Dhaka airport when the

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department first announced the pilot schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) will recall the number of attempts that he and I made in Committee to press the Minister to publish the report as quickly as possible. Although many promises were made, it was several years before the report was published.
When the report was published, the greatest sigh of relief came from those who had waited in queues and those waiting to have relatives brought to this country. Those are the kind of people who visit me, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and other hon. Members at our surgeries at weekends. Those people waited in hope that the Home Secretary would announce a fair policy which would reunite them with their families.
I am reminded of a quote from the oldest book of all:
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginnings of days, nor ends of life".
The orphans of the Prime Minister's immigration policy, they waited in queues. Those people have waited for a statement and they have been cruelly misled. The Home Secretary has let them down in several vital respects.
It is right that we should place this debate in the context of overall immigration control. As the Home Secretary said that the Minister of State was fair game for any criticism, I hope that he does not mind if I mention the unprecedented crisis which now grips the Home Office. There is a crisis at Lunar house, where my constituents must wait up to two years to receive decisions on nationalisation applications, and there is a crisis besetting the passport offices. There is also a crisis besetting hon. Members who, when they write to the Minister, must wait upwards of six weeks for a reply. Those who were present in this House on 16 November 1987 will recall the Home Secretary's statement at column 789 that he hoped to initiate an immigration policy that would provide a better customer service. The reality is quite different. If the Home Secretary, the Minister and the Home Office want to know about that customer service, they should speak to people who wait in the queues at Clive house and Lunar house for decisions from the Minister of State.
I want now to consider the cost of the scheme. I was shocked to hear the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). It is outrageous that poor families will have to pay a substantial amount to satisfy the test criteria. There have been various estimates, ranging from £100 to £130 per applicant. In addition, there is the threat that entry clearance fees will be increased, allegedly to pay for the test. That is an additional economic barrier for those who seek to come to this country.
The taxpayer has benefited and will continue to benefit from the DNA test. There will be an enormous saving of time in the preparation of documents, explanatory statements and other documents before the tribunal, and also a saving of the tribunal's time. A recent answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) stated that the cost of an appeal was approximately £85. If that is right—I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—it will result in a substantial saving.
I now refer to over-age applicants. It is manifestly unfair that, now that the Government have acknowledged that thousands of mistakes have been made, people who legitimately and fairly applied to come to this country and who knew instinctively that they were the children of their


parents, and felt that not only as a bond of nature but passionately, were told by immigration officers that they were not the children of their parents and that they would have to appeal and wait. They now find that what they have always said was true—that they know exactly who their parents were—but they will not be able to come here as of right.
We are concerned only with a finite number of people. If we are talking about a fair system that can be sold to inner-city areas and is based on family values, surely it is right that those people should be allowed to come to this country without having to rely on the Home Secretary's so-called compassion.
The test should be free for those who wish to use it. The Home Secretary should allow in those who applied before their eighteenth birthday and who were caught by the age limit. As other hon. Members have said, blood sample testing should take place in different parts of the sub-continental countries, and individuals should not have to face the burden of additional costs when travelling to posts abroad. Those who reapply should be given preference and should be put in an expedited queue. It is outrageous to expect them to reapply, sit in queues and, possibly, wait for nearly two years when their cases are strong and right.
What compensation is the Minister prepared to offer those who have suffered because of the Government's mistake? The Minister and the Home Secretary have deliberately delayed the publication of the report for several months, if not years. The Government should compensate those who have suffered untold misery.
We hear cliches when Members of Parliament come to this forum of the nation and talk about constituents who have been waiting for years to be reunited with their families. I am not saying that the Minister is an absolutely insensitive man. He has shown a degree of compassion that has permitted certain of my constituents to remain in this country. We told him that those people had a proper case, delays occurred, but he eventually allowed them to stay. We are not saying that, as an individual, he is without compassion, but we are saying that the policy is without compassion.
The policy will add to the anxiety and the hardship suffered by thousands and thousands of people throughout the country. If we are talking about having good race relations and improving community relations, we should ensure that we treat everyone fairly. We should treat those who come from India, Pakistan and the sub-continent countries with the same affection as we are now treating our colleagues in Germany, France, Portugal and elsewhere in Europe. We should not let them suffer because we are now part of the European Economic Community, which will, of course, allow millions of people to come here as of right.
The Government had a golden opportunity to act as the midwife for family reunion to those who had long given up hope of ever being reunited with their families. Grudgingly, the Government have admitted that the Alec Jefferies test was correct, and grudgingly, they have accepted the campaigns and the hard work of the voluntary organisations. They have accepted that those organisations were right after all. However, the knife in the back of those voluntary organisations and of all those who

wait in the queues abroad is the terrible burden of cost that is now being imposed, and the injustice of the age limit. Even at this stage, I appeal to the Minister—as a loving parent—in humanity, in justice and in compassion, to think again.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The phrasing of the motion is, to say the least, misleading. I believe that it is designed to be misleading to different groups of the British people. Everyone would accept that tough and fair immigration policies are a necessary part of race relations. It is unfortunate that Members on the Labour Front Bench have sought to mislead different groups in Britain and have in many ways sought to rubbish DNA testing, which can surely be regarded only as an advance in fairness and something that should be welcomed by both sides of the House.
Like many other hon. Members, I wish to concentrate on the last few words of the motion, which concern the effects on Britain of having immigrant populations and people who are black or Asian and British. I believe that that is one of the most important issues facing society.
It is estimated by the Institute of Race Relations that there may be 70,000 racial attacks a year. Certainly, in my constituency in suburban London, I receive a large number of complaints, especially from Asian people, about racial attacks and racial abuse. If we are honest, we will admit that that goes on, but that too many people turn a blind eye to it and just consider it part of the background to British society. But it is not part of that background —such behaviour needs to be condemned at every stage and must be taken seriously.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider one idea. It is not a new idea, but it is one that I believe would make an important contribution towards dealing with the problem. The Metropolitan police need a racial attack squad, just as they have a serious crime squad, a fraud squad and a squad to specialise in any of the areas of crime which need more than local expertise. They need a racial attack squad for serious cases, to give advice to local police forces, to formulate policy and to teach techniques for dealing with racial matters. I am not saying that the Metropolitan police have not made some advances in dealing with racial harassment and attacks, but they can do more, and I would look to them to do more.
Too many people still consider it acceptable to hold racist views. Such views help to categorise black and Asian people, but strong leadership at all levels will help the emerging middle classes in those communities. They will represent the genuine voice of those communities, and we want to hear it. Everyone in a position of leadership should encourage good race relations. We need a drive against discrimination, but not a re-run of discredited so-called "anti-racist" policies. We need tangible measures that will make a difference.
The Government have an enormous part to play. When Government money is used to fund major projects in the inner cities, the work force should be representative of the ethnic make-up of the area. Any company that wanted such funding would soon get the message and would employ a good proportion of black and Asian people if the Government insisted on considering the ethnic make-up of


the companies, and such people would not merely be employed as building workers—they would be employed throughout the company management structure.
The Government could act much more directly through the Civil Service. They must review their employment practices, not just for the lower grades but for those right at the top. Our record for tailoring our recruitment procedures to the true make-up of the population can only be described as pathetic. It is clear that the Civil Service has continued to recruit the same sort of people in the same old way, without regard to the reality of British society outside the narrow class band from which recruits are drawn. Something must be done about that.
My right hon. Friend was right to praise the advances that have been made in the recruitment of black and Asian people to the police, but the record is not stunning. Given that so few black and Asian people are part of our police force, it is not surprising that the police have difficulty policing some areas. I do not underestimate the difficulties of recruiting such people, but if other countries can manage to recruit large numbers of their minority populations, so can we. The minority communities also have an important part to play in this. Improvements will not be made unless the minority communities desist from actively persuading people not to join the police. If the ordinary, sensible view is to prevail, a recruitment push from inside the black and Asian communities must be mounted against the predictable, damaging and regrettably prevailing anti-police view. Only by such assertiveness from ordinary black and Asian people will the majority learn that, far from fearing minorities, Britain has everything to gain from black and Asian British people playing their part at the centre of our community.
The most important ingredient is the contribution that the minorities can make. It is in all our interests to be proud of being British. That means that we must challenge the parrot cry of "Uncle Tom" and recognise that the interests of the majority are not those of a politically motivated minority. It means isolating the extremists. It also means that each black and Asian person should find his role in our society. British society needs their input, not as Asian or black people or as people speaking for a minority, but as individual British people who care about Britain, who care about where they live, and who have a contribution to make and a part to play. This is part of a two-way contract, and no amount of work from one side will make up for lack of effort by the other. The potential rewards for Britain and its people are huge. It is worth the effort not just because of what we can achieve, but because of the consequences of our failure to achieve it.
In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), I wish to dissociate myself from the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), although I do so for a different reason. I do so because the vision of Britain put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge simply does not exist, probably never did exist and never will exist in the future. It is not right to put forward such an unattainable vision. It is 20 years since Enoch Powell made his powerful but career-ending speech. Many people saw that speech as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It was a callous and deliberately misleading speech which he sought to use as a means of promoting his political career, but it backfired on him—as all who seek to use this issue for their political careers will see it backfire on them.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has done something to put right the shameful speeches that we have heard from many hon. Members on the other side of the House. The Home Secretary said tonight that there must be rules, and we have been talking about people who have every right to come to this country within the rules that this Government laid down. Nevertheless, they were branded as liars, as cheats, as people who were trying to get in here by fraud and, in addition to the humiliation that they suffered in this way, they suffered long separation from their families.
I do believe that if this had happened to white people there would have been a demand for compensation. Anybody who has been wrongfully branded, and their character torn apart in this way, has the right to compensation. Yet, they are not even going to be given considerate treatment, from what we have heard tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is quite right to raise the question of people from the EC countries. Nobody ever says that we are going to be swamped by white Europeans coming to this country, and nobody counts the numbers. But there seems to be a lot of political mileage in appealing to the basest instincts of racists by talking about being swamped and playing the numbers game, when we should be talking about dealing fairly with those families from the Asian sub-continent who have been given a very unfair deal indeed.
It seems that the cases of those who apply for re-entry are not going to be expedited and that those who cannot afford to go through DNA testing will find themselves looked upon askance as though that means that they do not have a valid case, and that is a very grave danger. I also feel that the Home Secretary's example was a very shocking one. He talked of an old woman in this country who had three sons who could well afford to keep her although she was living on supplementary benefit—so why should we allow the sons to come here even though they were wrongly kept out? He said that she should go back to her own country. I find echoes in that of the crudest form of racism—one which says, "Get back to your own country." Surely it is easier for the sons to come and start a new life here, than for the old lady, who needs the care and attention of her sons, and who has been settled here for many years, to be uprooted and to go back to a place where she now has no connections. What kind of compassion and what kind of humanity is that?
I wanted to raise another question, but I feel hesitant to raise it in the atmosphere which has been present in this House tonight. That was a question which no one has raised, about men who sponsor a child whom they truly believe to be their own child and are prepared to take responsibility for that child, and the DNA tests prove that they are not the father of the child. That happens, I am afraid, in families in every country. I do believe that judgment should be exercised, if the male sponsor truly believes the child to be his and he has taken responsibility for that child, and that that family should be allowed to be united and the children allowed to come here.

Ms. Short: Before the pilot study was launched, we were given firm undertakings by the Foreign Office that in those instances, which happen in villages in the Indian sub-continent and, I am sure, in the families of hon.


Members, there would be honourable behaviour. We were assured that there would be privacy and the whole family would be allowed to come here. I hope that the Minister will reiterate the original assurance that we were given on that point.

Ms. Gordon: We have a very short time and I just want to raise one or two points about the changes in the new immigration rules, to get away from DNA testing, and to talk about how harshly the immigration rules are now being applied and how, strangely, people are often deported on the weekend when they cannot get hold of anybody to help them, and of how sometimes we appear to be cutting off our noses to spite our faces.
I had a frantic appeal from the headmaster of the Cubitt Town primary school about a valuable member of staff who was being told that she must leave because her original permit did not allow her to teach. I had to intervene and fortunately I got that teacher permission to stay; otherwise, another 30 children would have been without a teacher. Yesterday, Conservative Members did not seem too worried that there would be 1,000 children without teachers in Tower Hamlets. If the children had been the children of English middle-class parents they might have been concerned, but because they were the children of Bangladeshis they were not. Fortunately, that teacher was able to stay. If it had happened on a Friday or a Saturday, as in many other cases, she might have been bundled out of the country and those 30 children would not have had a teacher.
I had another case of a Nigerian, a student who had invested a great deal of time, effort and money into studying here. His allowance from Nigeria arrived late so he was late in re-registering. When the money came, he re-registered. Nevertheless, he was told to go and the immigration authorities would not hear any kind of appeal. What is the sense in that? He came here to study, and to take back the benefits of his knowledge to his own country. Why should he be forced to leave in the middle of his studies because of a technicality?
The last thing that I want to point out is the harshness meted out to some families who appeal against deportation orders hoping to win their case and are suddenly informed that their case is lost and are told they have to leave within a few days. No matter if they have children; they are given no time to inoculate them, no time to find somewhere for the children to live and no time to settle up their affairs in Britain. Nowadays, if one appeals on their behalf for an extension of time, one is frequently turned down.
I hope that the sort of changes that have taken place will be noted and that something will be done to ameliorate the position of those unfortunate people. Not only is it harmful and damaging to them, it is harmful and damaging to the reputation of this country, which once stood high as a country that had compassion, a country where people could find refuge and asylum. Now it is beginning to get a reputation for harshness, callousness and inhumanity.

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate. I should like to pay tribute to all in my constituency, in the

city of Leeds and in this country who are immigrants or the children or grandchildren of immigrants and who have contributed so largely to the success of Leeds and to the richness of this country. A great many immigrant families live in my constituency and in Leeds. From the highest to the most humble, they contribute at all levels of society. They do so willingly and extremely enthusiastically, and the community responds positively to them. That is the perspective in which race relations in this country today should be put.
I am sad about the Opposition motion because it seems so fatuous. It is contrived out of an attempt to whip up feelings—particularly among immigrant communities—which do not really exist. The leaders of ethnic minorities have told me that they believe it right that this country should have firm but fair immigration controls. Our changes in the rules will make those controls even fairer. Most people to whom I have spoken recognise and welcome that—

Ms. Short: rose—

Mr. Kirkhope: I am not giving way, as I do not have much time.
I want first to refer to what I believe is a welcome easing of the rules on husbands of women admitted to the United Kingdom for employment. It is nonsensical for the system to work in one way but not in the other. I am delighted at the change because it will remove many of the difficulties that families here have experienced as a result of the imbalance in the way the system works.
So far, DNA testing has proved successful and, interestingly, where it has been used, 86 per cent. of the tests have proved the applicant's position. It is an important and useful test and I know that most of the ethnic minorities in my area welcome it. I am pleased to see that it will now be made available more generally, although it is to be on a voluntary and not an obligatory basis, and I am sure that many people will take it up.
There remains the issue of whether the tests should be subject to a charge. We have heard what the test might cost, and undoubtedly in some cases that will be a considerable disincentive to poorer people. I was therefore interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister said about the possibility of legal aid, or some similar form of funding, to assist with testing.

Ms. Short: It is already available for appeals.

Mr. Kirkhope: I welcome that.
Once there is an entitlement, if a test is taken and the results support the entitlement, there must be some financial responsibility. It is simple to say that the test must always be at the applicant's cost, and in general that is probably right, but in some cases it should be possible for some assistance to be given so that the test can be made and something can be proved which would otherwise be more difficult to prove to the authorities. I hope that something will be done about that aspect.
More than anything else, delays in receiving information about confirmation or even rejection of applications for visas cause difficulty to those who wish to come and have every good reason to do so. I often have to deal with delays. Inevitably, it is difficult to get information from overseas because communications are slow, but once the required information has been provided to our High Commissions we should do our best to avoid


delays and to arrange interviews speedily. If people are not to be given visas, it would be helpful all round if they could be told so speedily. They might accept not getting permission, but they would like to know the position as soon as possible.
Under this Government, immigration rules have always been both fair and firm. The changes will clearly make them even fairer in the eyes of any reasonable person. I therefore find the Opposition's attitude incomprehensible. They were responsible for the introduction of immigration rules when they were in Government because they realised that it was important, not just for the country but for the ethnic minorities, that there should be a limit on the numbers coming in. Now, in a hypocritical fashion which I find ridiculous, they are trying to make out that the Government's rules—which, if anything, ease the position and make it fairer—are somehow appalling and terrible. Their attitude is disgraceful and cynical, and unthinking about good race relations and our standing in the eyes of the world.

Mr. Alistair Darling: Listening to the criticism by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) of the Opposition motion, I could not but be struck by the fact that one or two of his points entirely backed up our criticism of the Government's immigration rules and their announcement on DNA testing. I was also struck by his terminology. He referred to the "immigrants" in his constituency. We would all do well to remember that we are talking about the rights of British citizens. It matters not whether they are white or black; they are British citizens, and we must always bear that in mind.
We should also bear in mind that the Home Secretary is wrong to imply that we should either accept the Government's laws and rules or accept none at all. We are talking about the ways in which the Government's regulations and the immigration laws affect British citizens, and the central issue is the double-talk and double standards that the Government are applying when dealing with different British citizens. The leaked Home Office document bears that out. Referring to the timing of last week's announcement of the change in the immigration rules, it states:
we see advantage in combining the two announcements"—
DNA and immigration rules—
thus avoiding two separate rows about immigration issues in quick succession.
That tells us a good deal about the Government's attitude.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: I do not have time to give way. The hon. Gentleman has not been here for most of the debate.
The Government talk about family unity, but when they are confronted with the spectacle of divided families it is an entirely different story. Asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) about the rights of those who can now prove their cases through DNA testing, the Prime Minister lashed out—not with the detailed and specific figures that we are used to hearing when she defends her Government's record on the NHS, but with wild figures of 40,000 or 50,000. The Home Secretary has told us tonight, however, that only about 8,000 people are involved.

Ms. Short: That is the maximum.

Mr. Darling: The Government have reluctantly introduced DNA testing because they know that there is no way around it. Applicants, however, still cannot choose DNA testing at the outset, and we are told that, instead of a simple bureaucratic barrier, a barrier both bureaucratic and financial is to be placed in the way of those who wish to prove that they are related to their mothers and fathers.
There has been more double-talk about financing the scheme. The Government say that no announcement has been made, and the Home Office memorandum makes it clear that the announcement will not say how it is to be financed. It states:
The intention is to make a separate announcement on the funding arrangements shortly before the scheme comes into effect".
The scheme is due to come into effect in November. The Government say that they are only now starting dicussions with manufacturers and the rest, but it is abundantly clear that settlement fees will be introduced. I suspect that the announcement will be made when Parliament is not sitting so that we can avoid one of the nasty unpleasant little rows to which the memorandum refers.
Children are being separated from their parents because of the unfair attitude of immigration officers, yet no sympathy is to be shown to over-age applicants who can now prove that they have relatives here. The Government say that, provided they pass four hurdles, "compassion" can be exercised. The document, however, makes it abundantly clear that it is crucial to ensure that that concession remains the exception rather than the norm.
We can see the hardship that this will cause. Let me give an example. A sponsor had a wife and five children in Bangladesh. Four of the children were admitted; the youngest was refused admission because the immigration officer said that he did not believe the parents. In other words, he said, "You are lying; this boy is not your child." Can hon. Members imagine how they would feel if told that their children did not belong to them, and that they were making it up? This young child can prove the relationship: it has been proved by DNA testing. Nevertheless, he must reapply and his reapplication will not be considered until 1991. Then he may have to come up against the Home Secretary's "compassion", for the Home Secretary, if he is still in his post, will be holding the line rigorously.
That is what we are complaining about—the unfairness and the double standards. Such standards would never be applied if we were dealing with the children of white parents, or those of parents from a different country. They are being applied only to certain countries, mostly those on the Indian sub-continent. The Government's attitude is blatantly discriminatory, and I am sorry that the Home Secretary saw no problem in it. I am also sorry that he does not understand that most parents regard their children as their children whether or not they are over 18. Someone does not cease to be the child of his mother or father simply because he has passed his 18th birthday.
The memorandum makes it abundantly clear that, no matter what is said in public, in private the reality will be quite different and that compassion will be exercised very rarely—I suspect when a horror story hits the front pages of newspapers in order to buy off that problem.
The Home Secretary referred to the fact that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) is Mr. Compassion himself. My hon. Friend the


Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) complained that he had sometimes had to wait for six weeks for a reply. Recently, I had to wait six months for a reply concerning one of my constituents who had been trying to come to this country to study at an Edinburgh college. Mr. Compassion will be unable to solve the problems of people who are wrongly refused entry to this country—people who are over the age of 18 now, but who know that they are related and who have proved their case. It is no wonder that divided families simply do not believe the Government when they claim that they are operating anything like a fair system.
It is the same story when one considers other aspects of the Government's immigration policy. It is interesting to note that the high moral ground is claimed both inside and outside the House when the position of people living in Hong Kong is considered. Those who claim that high moral ground ought to examine some of the other practices adopted by this country in connection with our immigration regulations. Reference has been made to wives who have been denied the right to be joined by their husbands because immigration officers did not believe that their marriages were genuine. After 1992, however, any EC citizen will be able to come to this country with his or her spouse without let or hindrance. Surely British citizens ought to have the same right, no matter which country their spouse comes from.
The same applies to student visas. The Home Secretary said in his memorandum that there had been cases of abuse, particularly in west Africa. Is he telling us that students from America and Australia do not abuse the system from time to time? Why is it that only an American visitor will be able to become a student without having to return to the United States to reapply for entry? A visitor from Bangladesh or west Africa will have to return home and reapply to become a student in this country. There is no justification for such a broad axe approach. It cannot possibly be said that people from one country are somehow pathologically likely to abuse the system, while people from another country will not do so. By its very nature, that is discriminatory.
The Government attempted to nobble the immigration tribunals. They did so quite blatantly, they were found out and it had to be stopped. The Home Secretary referred to our treatment of tourists and visitors to this country, yet if one goes to Heathrow on any day of the week one finds that when immigration officers interview passengers who have arrived here on a plane from New York their attitude is entirely different from the one that they adopt towards passengers who have arrived here on a plane from Dhaka. To begin with, people who arrive here from Dhaka tend to be referred to as immigrants, whereas people who arrive here from New York are referred to as visitors or tourists. I am afraid to say that such double standards are endemic. What is worse, they are enshrined within the immigration rules and regulations of this country.
Does the Home Secretary not realise the hardship that the visa regime causes when people come to this country because they wish to attend a wedding or a funeral? If such a policy were to be adopted towards visitors from the United States and other similar countries, it would not be

tolerated. However, the Government are quite content to adopt such a policy in the case of visitors from the Indian sub-continent and certain African countries.
The Home Secretary suggested in his speech that the Opposition are trying to rake up trouble and prejudice. He should have listened to some of the speeches that have been made by Back Benchers on his own side of the House. We heard this evening a remarkable speech by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes). When we discussed the immigration rules a few days ago, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) made a speech that was racist, pure and simple. To give him credit, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said as much. However, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, did not say that. He thanked the hon. Member for Thurrock for his contribution but said that the hon. Gentleman had gone a little further than he yet wanted to go.
I hope that tonight the Minister of State will join his hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for Harrow, West in repudiating what was said by the hon. Members for Halesowen and Stourbridge and for Thurrock and make it clear that their attitudes and views form no part of this Government's policy—if that is the case. Perhaps someone should tell the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge that 250 million to 300 million people will be able to come to this country, if they wish to do so, after 1992 and that nobody will be able to do anything about it once the single European market is in place.
Let us not hear any talk about prejudice or any belittling of our motives in initiating the debate tonight. The Government must realise that the way in which the immigration rules strike at the rights of British citizens is intolerable. If we say that we live in a truly multiracial society, we must realise that all British citizens are entitled to fair treatment. The treatment that is meted out to some of our citizens simply would not be tolerated if it were happening to white people in Britain. The front pages would be full of outrage and Ministers would be standing at the Dispatch Box full of outrage, putting to right the rules that were found to cause offence. Yet that does not happen, despite the way in which the immigration rules are working.
To the Tories, families may be statistics and refugees may be unfortunate problems; but to the individuals involved, parents separated from their children and children who wish to look after infirm or aged parents, it is not a matter of statistics. It is a matter of decency that should concern everyone in the House. The Government simply do not realise that. Conservative candidates say all sorts of nice things and smile at constituents when they are wooing support before an election, but they should remember that the way in which the Government's rules and regulations operate cause a manifest injustice to British citizens in this country. If we are going to claim the moral high ground, the Government should start by accepting that mistakes have been made and injustices have been caused and must be put right if they are to claim to be a decent and humane Government.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): We have had a useful debate, although we have just listened to a speech of extraordinary ignorance by the hon.


Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). It was particularly wrong of him, as a lawyer, to make the comment that the Government had attempted to nobble the adjudicators. He knows that that is incorrect and has been answered in a parliamentary answer to him.

Mr. Darling: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Renton: I shall not give way as I have only nine minutes left. The hon. Gentleman should not make such comments.

Mr. Darling: rose—

Mr. Renton: I must move on.
I want to thank my hon. Friends and all those who have taken part in the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for his tribute to the immigration service for the conscientiousness with which it implements decisions throughout the country and at our consulates abroad. Those decisions are taken by Ministers and by Parliament and the immigration service has a very difficult role to fulfill. In answer to my hon. Friend's concern about the delays in dealing with marriage cases, through the speeding up of the backlog—a constant wish of mine in the past two years—we have admitted an extra 1,200 spouses or fiances into the country in the past 12 months. They got their entry clearance through the speeding up of the process.
All those changes in our procedures and determinations to speed them up were voted against by the Labour Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) was also concerned about that, and I must stress that, as a result of those changes, the backlog on immigration cases had fallen from about 75,000 to about 30,000, and I hope that it will fall further in the 12 months ahead. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) should remember that every time he talks about the chaos at Lunar house. In the light of the changes that we have made and the dent that we are making in the backlog, I sincerely hope that soon—perhaps tonight—the hon. Gentleman will vote for rather than against our changes.
I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) about racial harassment in our towns and cities. I note with great interest his comments about further recruitment of blacks and Asians into the police force. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will agree with those sentiments and I hope that he will have a chance to pursue those remarks on a different occasion, perhaps in a debate about the police.
To my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) I must say that I agree with his remark about Britain's generosity in admitting immigrants. That was a necessary concomitant to our imperial and colonial responsibilities, but immigrants have not come only from the Commonwealth —we have had large numbers of refugees from Vietnam, Chile, Uganda and Poland. Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the success of those immigrants, most of whom are now British citizens, and I wish them well in moving towards integration into our society.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East said that he was pleased that 86 per cent. of people who had recently taken the DNA test had passed it. In some measure, I am surprised that the figure was not 100 per

cent. as they all volunteered to take the test. My hon. Friend should remember that. One would expect that if they volunteered to take the test they would all pass it. It is significant that so many have recently taken and passed the test.
Against that background, I completely reject the charges of double standards and injustice in our treatment of the DNA process. I reject the comments by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central that we reluctantly introduced DNA testing. The reverse is true. The Labour party should occasionally listen rather than utter its traditional cries of racism, bias and double standards. Over the past month, we have accepted the results of hundreds of DNA tests.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Renton: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He had an Adjournment debate on the subject last week, and I have nothing to add. We have accepted the results of the test—

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of State has four minutes left to tell hon. Members what they most want to know. How will the DNA scheme be paid for?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister—

Mr. Madden: Will he—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister will not have a chance to do that.

Mr. Renton: I was about to reply to that point. As I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), we do not propose that the cost should be borne by the taxpayer. We intend exactly the opposite—that the cost should be spread between the generality of applicants for entry clearance. We are working out with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a proper means of achieving that and, as I said in the debate two weeks ago, we are discussing the cost with the companies involved. As soon as we have reached a decision, an announcement will be made to the House.
I was surprised when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) so firmly said that he intended to abolish the primary purpose test. He well knows that that test was introduced by the Labour Government in 1978 and that it was aimed against marriages of convenience. Why did the Labour Goverment introduce it? It was aimed against plain abuse of marriage for immigration purposes.

Mr. Short: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) was probably working in the Home Office at the time and will know precisely why the Labour Government introduced it. They introduced it to stop abuse.

Ms. Short: That is a totally different matter.

Mr. Renton: We subsequently introduced—

Ms. Short: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time.

Mr. Renton: The primary purpose test was introduced to ensure that marriage was not used as a means of obtaining settlement in this country.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook, with one of his big gestures—

Ms. Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister referred to me personally but did not give way. Is that not against all the conventions of the House?

Mr. Speaker: It is up to the Minister whether he gives way or not.

Mr. Renton: The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, with one of those big gestures that he tends to make in debates, that the primary purpose test keeps out 12 people for every one that it lets in.

Mr. Hattersley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Renton: That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said. I took a note as he was speaking, and it will appear in Hansard tomorrow.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Renton: I will not give way. That means that, using last year's statistics, the right hon. Gentleman would be suggesting that about 90,000 spouses and fiances came in one year from the Indian sub-continent alone. It is just that sort of reality that the Opposition could not fulfil. In government they would run away from the policies that they proclaim in opposition.

Mr. Derek Foster: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 249.

Division No. 281]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clay, Bob


Allen, Graham
Clelland, David


Alton, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Anderson, Donald
Cohen, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Crowther, Stan


Beckett, Margaret
Cryer, Bob


Beith, A. J.
Cunningham, Dr John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Darling, Alistair


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blair, Tony
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blunkett, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Boateng, Paul
Dewar, Donald


Bradley, Keith
Dixon, Don


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Doran, Frank


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Douglas, Dick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Buckley, George J.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Caborn, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Callaghan, Jim
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flannery, Martin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Flynn, Paul


Canavan, Dennis
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Foster, Derek


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Foulkes, George


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Fraser, John





Fyfe, Maria
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Galbraith, Sam
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Galloway, George
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morgan, Rhodri


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morley, Elliott


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Gordon, Mildred
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gould, Bryan
Mowlam, Marjorie


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Nellist, Dave


Grocott, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Harman, Ms Harriet
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pike, Peter L.


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Henderson, Doug
Primarolo, Dawn


Hinchliffe, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Radice, Giles


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Randall, Stuart


Hood, Jimmy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Richardson, Jo


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Robertson, George


Howells, Geraint
Robinson, Geoffrey


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hoyle, Doug
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Sheerman, Barry


Ingram, Adam
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Janner, Greville
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Short, Clare


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Skinner, Dennis


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Lamond, James
Soley, Clive


Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lewis, Terry
Steinberg, Gerry


Livsey, Richard
Stott, Roger


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Straw, Jack


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Loyden, Eddie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McAllion, John
Turner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Vaz, Keith


McCartney, Ian
Wall, Pat


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wallace, James


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McKelvey, William
Wareing, Robert N.


McLeish, Henry
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Maclennan, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McWilliam, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Madden, Max
Winnick, David


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marek, Dr John
Worthington, Tony


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wray, Jimmy


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Meale, Alan
Mr. Frank Haynes, and


Michael, Alun
Mr. Allen Adams.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Allason, Rupert
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Butcher, John


Atkins, Robert
Butler, Chris


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Butterfill, John


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carrington, Matthew


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carttiss, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cash, William


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Boswell, Tim
Chapman, Sydney


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Chope, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Churchill, Mr






Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hind, Kenneth


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, David
Irvine, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jackson, Robert


Day, Stephen
Janman, Tim


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
Kilfedder, James


Durant, Tony
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Evennett, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Knowles, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Knox, David


Favell, Tony
Lang, Ian


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Latham, Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lawrence, Ivan


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Forman, Nigel
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forth, Eric
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lightbown, David


Franks, Cecil
Lilley, Peter


Freeman, Roger
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


French, Douglas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fry, Peter
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Gardiner, George
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McCrindle, Robert


Gill, Christopher
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maclean, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McLoughlin, Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Malins, Humfrey


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mans, Keith


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maples, John


Gregory, Conal
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grist, Ian
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hague, William
Maude, Hon Francis


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hanley, Jeremy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hannam, John
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mellor, David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Harris, David
Miller, Sir Hal


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Iain


Hawkins, Christopher
Miscampbell, Norman


Hayes, Jerry
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Mitchell, Sir David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moate, Roger


Heddle, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Morrison, Sir Charles





Moss, Malcolm
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mudd, David
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Neale, Gerrard
Stokes, Sir John


Nelson, Anthony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Neubert, Michael
Sumberg, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Temple-Morris, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Paice, James
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pawsey, James
Thurnham, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tracey, Richard


Portillo, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Trippier, David


Price, Sir David
Trotter, Neville


Raffan, Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Redwood, John
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Renton, Tim
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rhodes James, Robert
Waldegrave, Hon William


Riddick, Graham
Walden, George


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Waller, Gary


Roe, Mrs Marion
Ward, John


Rost, Peter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Warren, Kenneth


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Watts, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wheeler, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Widdecombe, Ann


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winterton, Nicholas


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Speller, Tony
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Stanbrook, Ivor



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Stern, Michael
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Stevens, Lewis

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House commends the Government's determination to operate an immigration policy which is both firm and fair, as evidenced by their new amended and consolidated immigration rules; and welcomes the Government's announcement on the use of DNA testing in immigration cases.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Representation of the People Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Representation of the People Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Clause 1

EXTENSION OF PERMITTED PERIOD OF OVERSEAS RESIDENCE

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): We now come to amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'twenty-five' and insert 'fifteen'.
With this we may also discuss the following amendments: No. 4.
No. 7, in page I, line 10, leave out 'twenty-five years' and insert 'ten'.

Mr. Alistair Darling: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 10, leave out `twenty-five' and insert 'twenty'.
I could not be present in the Chamber for Second Reading last week. However, perhaps I can make it clear that the Opposition do not oppose the Bill in principle. We see that there is an argument for extending the time after which a voter may vote in elections in the country, but we do not believe that 25 years is justified.
We believe that a period of five years was unduly restrictive, especially as it is now clear that a number of people will leave this country perhaps to take up work in Europe or in other parts of the world but will still maintain a lively interest in the affairs of this country.
This Bill received its First Reading two days after the Conservatives had been humiliated in the European elections. My first reaction to the Bill was to think that the Government must be desperate if they were trying to rope in people who left the country up to 25 years ago. However, having considered the matter, especially in the light of my experience and that of some of my hon. Friends, it is clear that many overseas votes go to Labour as well as to other parties. The fears that were expressed initially that all overseas voters were somehow going to support the Government, are unjustified. Many people who have left this country to work abroad realise the damage that the Government are doing to this country. They are more than happy to vote for the Labour party to see this Government removed from office. I have no fears that by allowing an extension of the franchise in this way there will somehow be more votes for the Conservatives. I suspect that just as the mood is changing among voters resident in the United Kingdom, so those working and living abroad and reading reports of what is happening in this country will realise that it is time for a change and vote for the Labour party.
In that spirit, I have moved amendment No. 4 which will allow a person to vote for up to 20 years after having been included on an electoral register. I believe that 20 years is a sensible compromise but that 25 years is going a little too far and catering for people who have well and truly left this country and are unlikely to return. If the Government are prepared to accept the amendment, our

opposition to this clause and the associated clauses can be somewhat curtailed. Perhaps we could deal with the other matters as and when we reach them.

The Chairman: I owe an apology to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). I ask his pardon and call him to speak to amendment No. 1.

Mr. Gary Waller: Thank you, Mr. Walker.
During the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department put forward persuasive arguments for extending the existing period of five years during which British citizens abroad may continue to vote in our elections. I would certainly not disagree with those arguments. In suggesting that 25 years is too long, however, I wish to make a particular point which was apparently missed by all who spoke on Second Reading and was missed today by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling).
In various democratic countries which do not have parliamentary systems, electors vote for a Government on a national basis. In Britain there is no national constituency in that sense. Our theory of representative democracy requires people to vote for a Member of Parliament in a constituency which happens to have on average about 65,000 electors. Within this country there is a degree of mobility which in certain areas such as inner London is very high indeed. There is a rapid turnover of electors from one register to the next.
Most people who spend any length of time abroad retain links with this country, and if they take the trouble to register to vote we may assume that those links are reasonably close. However, we cannot assume that their links with a particular area will remain equally close. If, as is likely, they have relatives in this country, those relatives are likely to move several times in a period of 25 years and very probably into a different constituency. After a number of years, it is perhaps much more likely than not that if those overseas had to nominate where it would be most appropriate for them to vote, it would be somewhere quite different from the place where they lived or voted all those years before. After 25 years, their link with the place that they left could be extremely tenuous.
In the case of someone who, perhaps, lived somewhere only as a child before moving abroad and whose parents or guardians have moved a dozen times since, it would be nonsense to expect them to vote for candidates in a constituency that they may not have visited since and may not even remember. It is not practicable to give overseas electors a vote in a constituency other than the one in which they last registered or in which their parents or guardians were registered. I agree with the Government's decision to enfranchise those people as the only practical solution, but nobody would dream of enfranchising any other group by allowing them to vote where they happened to be resident on a certain day up to 25 years ago.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: France, the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, Australia and the United States all have territorial representation. People can continue to register, although in many cases they left more than 25 years ago.

Mr. Waller: I happen to think that our form of parliamentary democracy is rather better than some of


those that my hon. Friend mentioned. Just because they do things in a certain way does not mean that we should necessarily follow them.
An offensive extension of our system of representative democracy, which relies on constituencies, becomes intrinsically more offensive the longer the period is. There can be no objective way of determining how long the period should be, but if 25 years is considered right to denote a continuing link with this country-1 should be prepared to accept that—one might consider 15 years appropriate to denote a link with a certain constituency. For those reasons, I have opted for 15 years.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: In a spirit of generosity, I tabled an amendment specifying 10 years. On reflection, I was probably a little too generous. I am sure that the Minister will be grateful for that and will accept my amendment. Twenty-five years is excessive in the extreme. People who have been resident abroad, working abroad, earning money abroad and probably not paying taxes abroad are not likely to be interested in politics in this country. The Government's motive is to find a pool of voting fodder for the Tory party in the tax havens around the world.
No doubt the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) will shortly be sent to the Cayman Islands to search out a few Tory votes. No doubt the Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), will be off to Marbella to look around tax exiles there, and hold a few cocktail parties on behalf of the Tory party. Those cocktail parties would not be subject to the election expenses limit because it does not apply to advertising for voters overseas, any more than advertising in various newspapers such as Le Monde, The Christian Science Monitor, or the international version of El Pais, or on Sky television or any other satellite system would be subject to election expenses.
It is nonsense to enfranchise people who have lived abroad for 25 years. The Government should be concentrating on large numbers of people in this country who have been disfranchised because their landlords have chosen not to put them on the electoral register, because their local registration offices are so incompetent that they do not do their job efficiently, and because of insufficient canvassing and advertising about the need to register to vote.
The proposal is that anyone who was born in this country can vote for as long as 25 years later. That means that a child who is born today, who gets a passport straight away and whose parents take him out of the country, will have a vote in British elections in 18 years' time and for a further seven years after that. That young person would have no conception of political life, or of what happens in this country. He would be given a vote, but he would not be expected to play any part in public or private life in this country. I believe that the clause is merely to enfranchise tax dodgers around the world. If there were any other motive behind the clause, the Government would be attempting to improve democracy in this country.
The Government say that they are keen on promoting democracy. That is suspicious coming from a party that has introduced the poll tax, which has done more to discourage people from voting than anything else, and from a party that has done nothing to extend the franchise to those hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of

people across Europe who are legally resident in this country, are paying taxes in this country and are playing their part in community life, but who are denied the right to vote. They are denied, too, the right to vote in their own countries, because they are refugees or asylum seekers. We should be concentrating on improving democracy for people who live in this country and who contribute to this country rather than this curious—

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's concerns about improving democracy. Will he tell the House what contributions the Labour party proposes to make to improving democracy in Britain today?

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the debate will be confined to the amendments on the Paper.

Mr. Corbyn: The amendment on the Paper is designed to limit the damage of the proposal. As I have said, I have been far too generous in proposing 10 years, and I chastise myself for that.
As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) knows, if he bothers to read Labour party documents or anything else, we are concerned about democracy in the community, at work and in elections. That is why we intend to abolish the poll tax. We also support industrial democracy. Of course, I would be straying and trying your patience, Mr. Walker, if I went in that direction. The hon. Gentleman could have tabled his own amendments to the Bill. I notice that the Social and Liberal Democrats—if that is still his party's name—has not tabled any amendments, so I fail to see why its members are taking a holier than thou attitude in this debate. [Interruption.] Under my skin, not at all. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has an awful lot of problems under his skin, but one of them has nothing to do with me. The problem is the lack of support for his party and perhaps he should address himself to that.
The Bill is not a method of improving democracy, but nothing more than a method of enfranchising people who play no part in the life of the country. They are not interested in democratic movements in this country, because they have set themselves up in some other country and earn their money there. My 10-year rule would allow those people who have working contracts abroad—for example, those in the diplomatic service—to maintain a link with this country. I believe that a period of 25 years is quite ridiculous and, therefore, I commend my amendment to the House.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: It is extraordinary to listen, on the one hand, to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) describing these people as tax dodgers and, on the other, to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling)—speaking from the Opposition Front Bench saying that the Labour party is receiving increasing support from British citizens abroad. The hon. Member for Islington, North must in some way reconcile those two points of view. The abuse heaped on our citizens abroad is entirely unjustified. Many of them are Crown servants and local government employees who pay British tax deducted at source, and others are scarcely tax dodgers—otherwise, they would not live in countries where the tax rates are frequently higher than they are here.
We have listened to a number of suggestions for different periods, but they have, of course, all been plucked


from the air—just as much my right hon. Friend the Minister's proposal of 25 years as those we have heard of 10, 15 and 20 years. The truth is that large numbers of people work abroad and maintain links with the United Kingdom regardless of how long they have been out of the country. I was especially struck when I was last in the middle east by a British sales representative of a company in my constituency who had been working there for 30 years. He had continued to take his local papers every week in order to keep a watch on what was going on in his home town.
I am sure that many hon. Members have met people abroad who share that link with the home country. If there were to be any restriction, it would be more appropriate if it were related to those working overseas as opposed to those retired overseas, irrespective of the time limit. That is why I should prefer to see no limit.
When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to this short debate, I hope that he will bear in mind the fact that, if representations are made about any unsatisfactory features of the system, the legislation can be reconsidered to ensure that we are not unjustifiably disfranchising many of our fellow citizens. We are in an era, I hope, of increasing internationalism, and what is good for the majority of the countries in the EC and other democracies should surely be good enough for us. The internationalism of the Labour party, which lasted until 15 June, has been represented by the hon. Member for Islington, North, when he categorised all our citizens abroad as tax dodgers. Incidentally, that is an improvement on what he said about them only the other day. I hope that that sort of sentiment will not be expressed again, because it is monstrously unjustified.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: It has sometimes been observed that as people grow older so they become more reactionary in their political views. It may be fairly observed of the Labour party that as it has grown older so it has become more reactionary. The debate has illustrated the falling off that has taken place in the radicalism of the Labour party. In the debates which have taken place so far on the Bill, it has sought to restrict the franchise of British citizens, having spent the first 50 years of its life trying to extend it. The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is an example of just such an attempt.
It is bizarre that, following the proposition that was introduced on Second Reading that there should be a property qualification or a tax connection with the United Kingdom—that was the argument of those on the Opposition Front Bench—it is now being argued that we should reduce the right of British citizens to vote in British general elections.

Mr. Darling: On what basis does the hon. Gentleman make his remarks? At present, the franchise includes only those who are away for five years, and the amendment would increase that to 20 years, which is five years less than the period which the Government are proposing. I never suggested any property qualification or the qualification that the individual should pay taxes. That is not the right

basis on which anyone should be franchised. The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I say rather than speak on the basis of what he wished I had said.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman began his speech by admitting that he had not been present on Second Reading. Had he been present, he would have heard the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) suggesting that there should be a tax nexus. He proposed that that should be the test to determine whether individuals were entitled to vote. The hon. Gentleman may not regard it as especially reactionary to seek to reduce the entitlement proposed by the Government from 25 years to 20 years, but I think most fair-minded people would regard that as a restriction of the franchise.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) was right when he said that to pluck figures out of the air is wholly arbitrary. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central produced not one argument of substance to suggest that he had it any more right than the Government. At least the Home Seceretary had the grace to say that he was attracted to the idea of extending the franchise to citizens regardless of where they lived. In so doing, he reflected what I believe to be the common perception, that communications in the modern world are such that information about the country to which one belongs and of which one is a citizen is readily available regardless of residence.
It is widely recognised also that the overwhelming majority of British citizens who lived abroad are not, as caricatured by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), layabouts, lacking in patriotism or sponging parasites of the societies in which they live. Instead, they are hard-working people who, in many cases, are serving the countries in which they live specifically and directly as civil servants or soldiers, or as members of the commercial world. The idea that these people should be deprived of their citizenship rights to vote because they are living abroad seems reactionary, and unworthy of a party which claims to be radical.
I hope that the Government have not cooked up a deal with the Labour party over this measure, but I suspect that that is just what has happened. Having put forward the idea of 25 years in the Bill, I suspect that the Government will accept some slight adjustment in order to convey to the British people the idea that there is consensus on this matter. Let me disabuse them of that idea: there is no consensus. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West has made it plain that the true principle should be that of giving the citizen the right to vote, regardless of residence, proved connection and demonstrated patriotism. How many people in this country would survive a test of patriotism if such a test had to be applied before they were granted the right to vote?
The Bill moves in the right direction, but not far enough. I wish that the Home Secretary had followed his first instincts, and conveyed the right to vote to all those who, by citizenship, enjoy British nationality.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I am grateful for the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Walker. On Second Reading I tried to protest about remarks made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who castigated all expatriate workers as the equivalent of Ronnie Biggs. Unfortunately, on that occasion, I failed to make my point, but I shall do so this evening, not only by


welcoming the Government's measure—it is unusual for me to speak in favour of a Government measure—but also by speaking against the various different chances—

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Allason: I shall give way in a minute, when I have developed my point.
I should like to speak against the various different chances for reducing the number of years from 25 to 10 or even 15. It is important that the figure should be 25, and I shall give the House an example of somebody who would be absolutely disfranchised.
For example, an expatriate worker may go to live abroad, but just because, for lax purposes, he opts to become a non-resident in this country—that is, he spends a year and a day abroad and thereafter spends less than 90 days in this country—he will not pay tax in this country but, even though a non-resident, he will not necessarily be exempt from tax elsewhere. If he went to live in the United States, he would pay tax there.
The argument of Labour Members seems to be one of double taxation. They seem to present all non-resident workers as tax dodgers, which is not the case.

Mr. Corbyn: In defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, (Mr. Banks), who is, I understand, abroad—not, I hasten to add, in some tax haven—he said that the measure would enfranchise Ronnie Biggs, which is perfectly true. He also said that it would enfranchise a large number of tax dodgers, which is perfectly true. He did not say, and neither have I ever ever said, that every British person who lives abroad is either a crook or a tax dodger. I want to place that on record, so that what was and was not said is clear.

Mr. Allason: I am grateful to have that point clarified and I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West enjoys his stay abroad, wherever it may be, and does not have to pay any tax. However, while he is there he may well notice that, if the so-called tax haven is an island, the cost of living is substantially higher than that of this country, and even in a tax haven, he may be obliged to pay other sorts of taxes. In many countries where there is no income tax, for example, there is a very—

The Chairman: Order. I advise the hon. Gentleman to come back more closely to the specific amendment before the Committee.

Mr. Allason: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Walker.
I speak in favour of the 25-year limit. It is a reasonable limit. Supposing an expatriate worker goes abroad and lives there. He may well retain a property in this country and come back here once every six months or so. He may let out the property. More importantly, even if he remains out of the country for 25 years, that does not mean that he will automatically become eligible to vote in his new country. Because children may retain their British nationality and their links with the United Kingdom and may be educated here, it is important that their parents have an opportunity to vote. They should not be disfranchised; they should be able to take part in the democratic system and to vote for a Government when that moment comes.
Accordingly, 25 years is a sensible period. It will mean that the children of someone who has taken work abroad will still have the chance to choose, so I commend the 25-year limit to the House.

Mr. David Winnick: No one would want to remove the right to vote of a person who has gone abroad on a contract, or who serves in the armed forces or in the EEC. However, many of us oppose extending the time limit for those who have been away from this country for a long time, many of whom exhibit no commitment to return. Five years is the maximum permitted under the present law, and a declaration has to be signed. In it, the person states that he will return to the United Kingdom at some stage. This Bill would abolish that.
I can see no justification for such an extension. As the Bill has been given a Second Reading, I shall support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), which provides for an extension to 10 years. As he said, perhaps, on reflection, he should have sought a smaller number of years, but I shall support his amendment as the best available option.
I shall accept no lectures from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about being an anti-democrat. I am all in favour of democracy. Had I been around at the time, I, unlike some Conservative Members, would have fought to extend the right to vote and for other democratic reforms. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I require no lectures on defending our democracy. Far from defending our democracy, the Government proposal devalues it because it gives the vote to people who have lived away from this country for years on end, who have no commitment to it and who have no intention of paying tax here. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, many of the children of parents who took them away and never returned will have the right to vote. I cannot see how that helps democracy.
Unlike the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, I know full well why the Government are proposing this change: they believe that it will bring them votes. If they thought otherwise, they would not suggest it. It is naive of the Liberals, or Democrats, to believe that the Government have any objective other than garnering as many votes as possible. It surprises me that there should be any illusions about that.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North is better than the one tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and it deserves support.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. When we began the debate on this group of amendments, you announced the selection of amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 7 for debate, but they were mentioned in the order of amendments Nos. 4, 1 and 7. I should like some guidance, because the amendments refer to different numbers of years-20, 15 and 10 years. Will there be an opportunity to vote on all three of them, so that the Committee has a say about all three options, or will you be selecting one for a vote, so that we do not vote on the other two?

The Chairman: At the conclusion of the debate, I shall put the question that is before the Committee, which is that on amendment No. 4. If the Committee agree to that amendment, such a decision will relieve it of the necessity of voting on the other two amendments in the group.

Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. I understand what you say. However, the selection list has amendment No. 1 down first, with amendments Nos. 4 and 7 after it. After my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) moved amendment No. 4, you asked the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) to move amendment No. 1, and apologised to him for not calling him first.

The Chairman: Order. I called the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) not to move his amendment, but to speak to it. It may have been an inadvertence on my part, but I failed to see the hon. Gentleman rising at the outset of the debate, so I called the hon. Member whom I saw rising, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). For that reason, it will be amendment No. 4 that 1 shall have, I hope soon, the opportunity to put to the Committee.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will let me deal with one point of order before she raises another.
In the light of the decision that the Committee takes, we shall decide whether it is necessary to vote on any other amendments in the group.

Mrs. Wise: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. It is not at all clear why you failed to call the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who tabled the first amendment in the group. Having apologised for failing to call him, you have implicitly admitted that the hon. Member was entitled to be called first. What is at stake is not simply the order of speeches but the right of the Committee to cast votes. Therefore, will you reconsider, as it was apparently an accident that you did not call amendment No. 4 first, and say that that should not be the determining factor as to whether we vote on amendment No. 4?

The Chairman: The hon. Lady is getting dangerously near to debating my ruling, and I am not prepared to allow that. I have ruled, and I see no reason to change my ruling.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Our debate is not about something of minor significance. On Second Reading, the Minister said that the Bill would enfranchise up to 2 million people. We cannot decently decide who should have the vote on the principle of who will get political advantage from that vote. That is what is behind the Government's proposals, and I was disappointed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) who said, perhaps in a jocular way, that it was all right to enfranchise people living overseas because they would vote Labour. We should be extending the franchise only to those who have a legitimate right to that franchise, and who form part of the society that should have a say in the decisions of, and operate checks and balances over, its political representatives. Therefore, those who are resident here, have close links with us or are returning here, rather than detaching themselves from it, have a right to vote in it.
Many people who live overseas may be worthy, although others will be tax dodgers, but that factor should not enter the argument. On the whole, people will increasingly associate themselves with the societies to which they have moved. They will read newspapers and watch television there and follow the careers of their

children, who will help to change their attitudes. They will become detached from our society, feeling a secondary rather than a direct sense of involvement with what is, to them, merely their country of origin. Many people here will, of course, adopt a similar attitude, but at least the social conditions which surround them will draw them increasingly into our society and justify their having the vote.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. Does he not agree, however, that a British citizen's retention of his citizenship is an indication of his desire to retain the link that allows him to receive the protection of the British Government and to carry a British passport? Is not that in itself a more objective test than any other of the connection of people living abroad with this country?

Mr. Barnes: Such people may wish to demonstate their link with this country. My argument, however, is that the way of life that they are leading abroad and the society that surrounds them will change their attitudes considerably, and that their connection with this country—their attachment to it—will become merely legalistic. In the past we have talked of extending the franchise to people who belong to our society—who are resident here, and who become increasingly involved in what happens here and what they wish to happen. Although the hon. Gentleman has a point, I think that it is countered by other factors.
Before I gave way to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), I was about to voice a considerable criticism of something that he has said. I take offence at the suggestion that some Opposition Members are not genuinely concerned about the legitimate extension of the franchise. I have presented a Bill to bring about the re-enfranchisement of the people, because I am especially concerned about the way in which the poll tax, because of the interconnection with the electoral register, will help to destroy the franchise.
I have argued strongly for the extension and nurture of the franchise in this country. For instance, we spend a tiny amount on encouraging electoral registration. Last year Abbey National spent more than £6 million encouraging people to vote in one of its ballots, while the nation spent only £320,000 encouraging them to take up their franchise rights. That contrasts with the amount—more than £3,500,000—which could be spent for that purpose under the Bill.

Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to the law of this country, everyone who is eligible to vote must be included on the electoral register? That is the responsibility of each householder, but hardly anyone—if anyone at all—is ever prosecuted for deliberately keeping people off the register. Should not the Government be attending to that problem?

The Chairman: Order. I think that the Committee should get back to the amendments.

Mr. Barnes: It is clear from what I have said that I support a move to include on the register as few overseas residents as possible—only those who have been in contact with this country recently. The initial five-year period established by the Representation of the People Act 1985 is, in my view, preferable to any of the current proposals. During consideration of the Bill in 1984, a seven-year


period was proposed, but there was a furore and a great debate—that Parliament concentrated on the issue much more closely than this one—and the Government made a concession, cutting it down to five years. They have now gaily advanced it to 25 years. I find 20 years better than 25, 15 better than 20, 10 better than 15, and five would be the best of all if we cannot return to what happened before 1984.
Other consequences follow from a determination of the number of years that a child has to spend in this country to be enfranchised. That point will be dealt with later but it will be affected by the decision on this amendment. Someone who is now a babe in arms will be entitled to a vote at the age of 18, having lived all his life overseas and he will retain that right for seven years, although he may be voting in a constituency which did not exist when he was a babe in arms and he may know nothing about conditions in this country.

Mr. Allason: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that children who move abroad with their parents, or who were born abroad, may never have the right to vote in their parents' new country and may wish to retain their links with the United Kingdom? Their parents may return frequently to this country. If a limit of five or even 10 years were imposed, those children might be disfranchised.

Mr. Barnes: We cannot determine who should be enfranchised in this country by means of any global idea of what the franchise arrangements should be. A child may be living in a country where there is no franchise, so even if he became a naturalised citizen of that country he could never exercise his franchise rights. We used to have a parliamentary democracy with decent checks and balances. We have to decide who can rightly be enfranchised. If we get it right, we shall then be able to argue that the principles that we adopt ought to be adopted by other countries.

Mr. Stuart Randall: I apologise to the Committee for the fact that early on in the debate I was called out of the Chamber for five or 10 minutes. During that period I understand that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to the Second Reading debate which touched on the amendments before the Committee. I understand that the hon. Gentleman repeated a point that he made during that debate—that I had said that Labour party policy is that people should have property before they are allowed to vote. That is completely contrary to our policy.
During the Second Reading debate I said:
Does the Minister consider that, for many of the tax exiles"—
the issue was tax exiles, in the context of the 25 years argument—
who have given up Britain to live overseas—there should be no representation without taxation? If these tax exiles pay tax they should, by right, have a vote. Does not the Minister agree that this is a reasonable criterion for extending the representation of these people?"—[Official Report, 29 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 1146.]
The reason for making the point in that debate was that in 1985 the Minister advocated the same point. I was making a debating point rather than suggesting in any way that Labour party policy is that people should not have the vote if they do not own property. That would be quite absurd.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The basic proposition from which I start, and which I commend to the Committee, is that one should not deprive a British citizen of his vote unless there are very persuasive arguments to that effect. That must be especially true at a time when more and more people are working for longer and longer periods abroad in a multiplicity of jobs, many of them of direct benefit to this country. To say, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said, that the Bill is designed to benefit tax dodgers, crooks, thieves and wastrels is to bring discredit only upon himself.
I shall make two further points in support of the general proposition that I have advanced. First, while it may be true that the Bill would extend the franchise to a number of people who might be described as tax dodgers and perhaps thus unworthy, the fact that a number of unworthy people benefit from an extension of the franchise is not and can never be an argument against extending the franchise to the many more numerous people working abroad for wholly good reasons.
Secondly, the Bill proposes a self-regulating mechanism. It is no good criticising the Bill on the grounds that it will extend the franchise to people who have no interest in voting. If they have no interest in voting, they will not apply to register.

11 pm

Mr. Corbyn: The Minister appears to be proposing a duality of standards, in that voter registration is compulsory for people living in Britain, but it will be optional to people living abroad who are offered the vote. Does the Minister agree that there is an inconsistency?

Mr. Hogg: No. The approach that Parliament has always taken is not to impose obligations which are unenforceable. As we cannot enforce against persons living abroad an obligation to register, we cannot impose one to that effect.
The House has to consider four possible time periods. The Bill provides for 25 years; amendment No. 4, moved by the Opposition, provides for 20 years; a further amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) provides for 15 years; and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Islington, North provides for 10 years.
Judged against the general proposition which I have set out, the amendments proposing 10 and 15 years are too short. Neither 10 nor 15 years would be appropriate, bearing in mind that the general principle must be that British citizens have the vote unless there is some jolly good reason to the contrary. That leaves a choice between 20 and 25 years. I am perfectly willing to concede that, in a sense, we are plucking figures out of the air, and it is difficult to say that there is a distinction of principle between 20 and 25 years. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has described his amendment No. 4, which proposes 20 years, as a sensible compromise. In electoral matters, there is much to be said for attracting as much support as possible around a particular proposal for change, and because of that I recommend to the Committee that amendment No. 4 be accepted.

Mr. Winnick: I can assure the Minister that there will be a vote. Whatever concession he makes, it will not be


enough for some of us. Will he explain why the declaration is to be abolished? Although I would remain opposed to the Bill, if the declaration were retained, at least there would be some commitment which a person now has to sign to vote in a British general election. Will the Minister consider that at some stage? It is important, at least theoretically, that in signing a declaration, a person should be placed under some obligation that he intends to return to Britain at some stage.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is attentive but forgetful. He will recall that I dealt with that point when I replied to the Second Reading debate. We may not agree, but the declaration is unverifiable. There is no way in which an independent person can judge whether a person making the declaration is telling the truth. Therefore, it is intrinsically valueless. Because the law does not favour incorporating into statute law valueless requirements, I certainly would not commend the hon. Gentleman's proposition to the Committee.

Mr. Winnick: The declaration was included by the Government. I recognise the shortcomings that the Minister just mentioned, but at least it places the person under an obligation of honesty. I have many reservations about the Bill, but bearing in mind that the declaration was included by the Government, what are the arguments for abolishing it?

Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Gentleman had thought a little more clearly about his intervention, he would be aware of the reason. He referred to the declaration about honesty, which in effect says that the person has no intention of living permanently outside the United Kingdom. Nobody can answer that question with certainty one way or the other, because he must admit the possibility that he might change his mind. That being so, he cannot assert the declaration with a clear conscience. Because of that, and because it is unverifiable, I do not commend it to the Committee.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) received echoed support from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). In effect, my hon. Friend was asking whether we should reconsider the figure. The truth is that the Government would be content to accept a period of 20 years, against the background that I have outlined. We do not propose to bring further proposals before the House in the future. Clearly, if there were general, substantial support to extend the franchise, we should have to reconsider the matter. At present, I commend amendment No. 4 to the Committee.

Mr. Maclennan: I predicted that there would be collusion between the Front Benches. As on so many other matters, they have joined in reaction and lack of principle. The Minister could not embellish the lack of principle of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), who adduced no argument of substance, or indeed any argument, for advocating 20 years as the appropriate time. Even with his more inventive mind, the Minister could not produce an argument of substance.
Not only the Committee but the country will note that collusion and lack of principle and the rejection of the powerful arguments of Conservative Members. It will be

noted how the Government and the Opposition have been prepared to cut down the proposed right to extend the franchise to British citizens regardless of where they live and work. It is a sad commentary on the way in which Parliament operates.

Question put, That the amendment be made;—

The Committee divided: Ayes 144, Noes 27.

Division No. 282]
[11.07 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Jack, Michael


Allason, Rupert
Jackson, Robert


Arbuthnot, James
Janman, Tim


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Atkins, Robert
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kilfedder, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Boswell, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Knapman, Roger


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Knowles, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Latham, Michael


Burns, Simon
Lawrence, Ivan


Burt, Alistair
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Butcher, John
Lightbown, David


Callaghan, Jim
Lilley, Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Carttiss, Michael
McAvoy, Thomas


Chapman, Sydney
Maclean, David


Chope, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Malins, Humfrey


Cran, James
Mans, Keith


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Curry, David
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Darling, Alistair
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Meale, Alan


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Miller, Sir Hal


Day, Stephen
Mills, Iain


Devlin, Tim
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dewar, Donald
Monro, Sir Hector


Dixon, Don
Morrison, Sir Charles


Dorrell, Stephen
Moss, Malcolm


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Neubert, Michael


Dover, Den
Nicholls, Patrick


Durant, Tony
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fallon, Michael
Paice, James


Favell, Tony
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Portillo, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Forth, Eric
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Foster, Derek
Randall, Stuart


Franks, Cecil
Redwood, John


Freeman, Roger
Riddick, Graham


French, Douglas
Roe, Mrs Marion


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sackville, Hon Tom


Gill, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Shaw, David (Dover)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Gow, Ian
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Speller, Tony


Gregory, Conal
Stanbrook, Ivor


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Stern, Michael


Hague, William
Stevens, Lewis


Hanley, Jeremy
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Sumberg, David


Haynes, Frank
Summerson, Hugo


Heddle, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hind, Kenneth
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Thurnham, Peter


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Vaz, Keith


Hunter, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Irvine, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)






Warren, Kenneth
Wood, Timothy


Watts, John
Yeo, Tim


Wheeler, John



Widdecombe, Ann
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Alton, David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Beith, A. J.
Nellist, Dave


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Pike, Peter L.


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Primarolo, Dawn


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Clay, Bob
Wallace, James


Cryer, Bob
Winnick, David


Gordon, Mildred
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howells, Geraint
Wray, Jimmy


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Livsey, Richard
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Harry Barnes.


Maclennan, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Tony Benn: As a result of the way in which the amendments have been called—and I make no criticism—the only way in which an alternative view can be expressed is by speaking against clause 1 standing part of the Bill.
I am one of those—and there must be others—who are anxious when the two Front Benches agree because the usual channels can become too easy a form of contact. However, when the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) speaks about democracy, it is right to put it on record that he was elected as a Labour candidate in the 1979 election and that the ballot paper said "Labour". When the hon. Gentleman deserted the Labour party, he tore up every ballot that was cast for him and served under another label for the rest of that Parliament. Therefore, I do not find it easy to take lectures from him on the subject of ballots.
However, I want to make the more substantial point that our parliamentary system rests on a constituency basis. We refer to, for example, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, or to the right hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup and for Finchley or whatever the constituency may be. Under this arrangement it is possible that several constituencies in which there is a narrow vote one way or the other might elect their Members of Parliament on the votes of those who have not lived in this country for 20 years. That is a substantial change.
When the franchise was extended in the 19th century, the concept of passports did not exist. The only meaning of "citizenship" was where one lived and worked. We are now departing from that. There are millions of people who create the wealth in this country and who have no vote but, as one Conservative Member has said, if one holds property here, one is entitled to vote. By making this change, we are shifting the idea of citizenship from those who have a commitment to the future of the country because they live and work here, to those who have property in this country but who live and work elsewhere. That is a substantial change.
The poll tax has altered the basis of the vote because everybody who is on the register will be pursued for the poll tax—[HON. MEMBERS: "Community charge"] Those who live abroad will not be pursued for the poll tax. Indeed, it is called the poll tax because it is a tax attaching to those who are on the register—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I know that there will be others who pay the poll tax who will not be on the register, but nobody on the register will be able to escape the poll tax. Of course, people such as foreign residents living here will pay the poll tax.
Finally, the 20-year rule is retrospective. What about young people of 16 who pay taxation, who are at work and who have an interest in the next 20 years in this country because they live here, but who are not to be enfranchised?
I do not know whether the House will seek to proceed to another Division, but for those reasons, in my speech and in my voice, I wish to register my opposition to clause 1 standing part of the Bill. This is a big change and the fact that an agreement has been reached between the two Front Benches should not recommend itself to those who see the basis of our vote as constituency representation. Those who live and work in a constituency should have primacy in electoral representation over those who live abroad for whatever reasons. I make no charge against those who live abroad because they may have good reason to do so—but they have no direct commitment to, nor do they create wealth in, the society where they claim that they should have a vote.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is true that the parliamentary system rests on a constituency basis. It is also true that by "democracy" we mean extending the franchise to adult citizens. Sometimes those things can come into conflict. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) takes a narrow view in saying that people living overseas should not have a vote in a constituency where they have not resided for some time. That is incompatible with the view of a democratic society that I am putting forward. Because of that approach and that difference in interpretation, I advise the Committee to reject what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 143, Noes 16.

Division No. 283]
[11.23 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Cran, James


Allason, Rupert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Alton, David
Curry, David


Arbuthnot, James
Darling, Alistair


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Atkins, Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Beith, A. J.
Day, Stephen


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Devlin, Tim


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dewar, Donald


Boswell, Tim
Dixon, Don


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dorrell, Stephen


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Dover, Den


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Durant, Tony


Burns, Simon
Fallon, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Favell, Tony


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Forman, Nigel


Carrington, Matthew
Forth, Eric


Carttiss, Michael
Foster, Derek


Chapman, Sydney
Franks, Cecil


Chope, Christopher
Freeman, Roger


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
French, Douglas


Cope, Rt Hon John
Garel-Jones, Tristan






Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Morrison, Sir Charles


Gow, Ian
Moss, Malcolm


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Neubert, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Nicholls, Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hague, William
Paice, James


Hanley, Jeremy
Pike, Peter L.


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Portillo, Michael


Haynes, Frank
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hind, Kenneth
Randall, Stuart


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Redwood, John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howells, Geraint
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunter, Andrew
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Irvine, Michael
Speller, Tony


Jack, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jackson, Robert
Stern, Michael


Janman, Tim
Stevens, Lewis


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Kilfedder, James
Sumberg, David


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Summerson, Hugo


Kirkhope, Timothy
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knapman, Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knowles, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Latham, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lawrence, Ivan
Thurnham, Peter


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lightbown, David
Wallace, James


Lilley, Peter
Waller, Gary


Livsey, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


McAvoy, Thomas
Warren, Kenneth


Maclean, David
Watts, John


Maclennan, Robert
Wheeler, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Widdecombe, Ann


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Wood, Timothy


Malins, Humfrey
Yeo, Tim


Mans, Keith



Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Miller, Sir Hal
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


Mills, Iain



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Primarolo, Dawn


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Skinner, Dennis


Clay, Bob
Spearing, Nigel


Corbyn, Jeremy
Vaz, Keith


Gordon, Mildred
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Loyden, Eddie
Wray, Jimmy


Mahon, Mrs Alice



Meale, Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Harry Barnes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

EXTENSION TO THOSE NOT PREVIOUSLY REGISTERED IN UNITED KINGDOM BECAUSE OF AGE

The Chairman: We now come to amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'twenty-five' and insert 'fifteen'.

Mr. Waller: In the light of the reasonable decision on amendment No. 4, and because this amendment is closely related to it and it would be illogical to have a different figure, I do not seek to move the amendment.

The Chairman: In that case, I call upon the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) to move the next amendment in the group.

Mr. Darling: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'twenty-five' and insert 'twenty'.

The Chairman: With this, we will take the rest of the amendments in this group: No. 8 in, page 1, line 16, leave out 'twenty-five' and insert 'ten'.
No. 3, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'twenty-five' and insert `fifteen'.
No. 6, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'twenty-five' and insert `twenty'.
No. 9, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'twenty-five' and insert `ten'.

Mr. Darling: I make no bones about it, the 20 years is a compromise. When speaking of compromises, I must say that I was surprised to meet the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in the Lobby a few moments ago. After his outburst, in which he was almost moved to tears, about the principle of the franchise, and the shame that he felt had been brought upon democracy in the House, it was surprising to discover him in the same Lobby as I and some of my hon. Friends.
Having accepted the figure of 20 years in clause 1, it is obviously logical to accept the same figure in clause 2.
I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and other hon. Members that it is absolutely wrong, and that, if one goes abroad, one loses all touch and, therefore, all right to vote in one's constituency. I have in mind one of my constituents who lived and voted in my constituency for a number of years. He went to work for the EC, initially for five years, and under the existing legislation was entitled to vote. As he is now going to do a further stint of five years, I do not see why he should be disfranchised in a separate election. And I am not just influenced in that. I am more than satisfied with the way in which he casts his vote. It is difficult to see why he should be disfranchised. As the mobility of labour increases and people go to work in Europe and other parts of the world, I do not believe that there is a strong principle that one must restrict the franchise to those who are resident within a constituency at any one time.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: I will not give way, because I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman really wants to speak, he will have little difficulty in catching the Chairman's eye.
On that basis, I trust that the amendment will be accepted, compromise or not.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has moved amendment No. 5 and I believe that he was also speaking to amendment No. 6. At the risk of being accused by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) of being a party to a collusion and for the reasons that I outlined in my remarks in the last but one debate, I commend amendment No. 5 to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 2, line 6, leave out `twenty-five' and insert 'twenty'.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: With the leave of the House, may I put together clauses 3 to '8?

Mr. Benn: No.

Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

INCREASE OF LIMITS ON EXPENSES OF CANDIDATES AT PARLIAMENTARY BY-ELECTIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Benn: The clause introduces an anomaly into the control of election expenses that is completely unjustifiable and inexplicable. The Committee is being invited to say that substantially larger sums of money can be spent in by-elections than can be spent in general elections. Whatever the appropriate figure—I shall not argue what the figure should be—hon. Members are elected under the same rules, whether they are elected in a general election or a by-election. The idea that a by-election should entitle the parties to spend more than in a general election can be justified only on the basis that they already spend much more than they should in by-elections. At least, it has been widely reported that in by-elections the expenditure exceeds the legal limit.
I speak with some feeling on the matter as I have fought 15 elections as a parliamentary candidate, including four by-elections. I got in at a by-election, I was slung out at a by-election, I got back in at a by-election, and when my constituency was abolished in 1983 I got in again afterwards at a by-election. What is so highly undesirable about the great media circus in a by-election is that it means that a by-election is treated differently from a general election. Seventeen candidates stood at Chesterfield in 1984, and it was a media circus. There were 25 film units in the constituency for a month. All the hotels for miles around were booked by the various journalists who covered the by-election. If there are limits of any sort or kind, they should apply to everyone, whether they are involved in a general election or a by-election.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The number of candidates in the 1984 by-election at Chesterfield took the record away from my constituency when I was elected. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the reality in his by-election, as in others, was that more was spent by all the parties than the electoral limit? I suggest that that includes his own election and his own party.

Mr. Benn: I am not asking the House to go into that. I have said that it is widely accepted that the limit is exceeded. If the House passes a law, finds that it is

disregarded and then makes an exception of the occasions when it is disregarded, that is not a satisfactory legislative procedure. I do not know, but it may well be that in some instances the limit is exceeded in general elections. Indeed, I had to appear before an electoral court in 1964, when it was alleged that I had spent more than in fact I had. I think that my agent put down many things under the head of election expenses—that is not uncommon—and as a result accidentally exceeded the limit. I do not think that we spent anything like the total sum recorded. However, I had the unpleasant experience of appearing before an election court and having to ask to be excused.
I am saying that if the House thinks that the limit is unreasonable, it should raise the limit, but we should not introduce a distinction between by-elections and general elections.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It seems that the by-election limit is unenforceable when national interest is focused on one constituency. That is never the position during a general election. I assume that that is the practical reason for the proposal set out in the clause.

Mr. Benn: The principle of unenforceability is based on the assumption that everyone is doing it, that no one wants to reveal that anyone else is doing it, and that it is believed that the limit should be raised. Perhaps even the proposed new limit would not cover some of the expenditures that are undertaken.
I do not believe that media by-elections perform any service in a parliamentary democracy. The media take over, but they have little to do with the constituencies where the by-elections occur. The journalists who pour into an area for a by-election have no interest in the locality where the election is taking place. Their purpose is to use the election as a test of opinion in a general election. For example, Peter Snow, on "Newsnight", examined a swing in a ward in Chesterfield and predicted an SDP Government in a general election.
Pollsters make a living out of these occasions. Vincent Hanna came to Chesterfield during the by-election and went to a ward where there had been an unhappy withdrawal of a candidate for personal reasons. He stood outside the polling station and said, "There has been a withdrawal because Mr. Benn has been selected as the Labour party's parliamentary candidate." His interest had nothing to do with the people in the area, and I do not think that that does Parliament any good.
I know that the Lobby makes a living out of by-elections, as do pollsters, but that is not necessarily a good thing. I say this with some feeling, because the party of which I am a member has already interpreted the arguments that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) advanced as a justification for saying, where there is a by-election, "We had better impose a candidate or retain the right to do so." That is not a good thing either, and that is a view that I have expressed both internally and externally. Candidates are there to represent the constituencies that choose them.
I am opposed to proportional representation in some forms because it would involve a list system. That would mean—

The Chairman: Order. There is nothing about proportional representation in the clause. I hope that we can stick to the subject of the clause.

Mr. Benn: I am not wasting the time of the Committee but making the serious point that by-elections are the same as general elections because they are designed to fill vacancies. Once we say that a by-election is different, not only do we give more leeway for expenditure, but we begin to argue that the candidates should be chosen in a different way. Similarly, the list system would destroy the link between candidates and the locality that they represent.
These are not party matters. The Representation of the People Bill is generally accepted as a parliamentary matter which, in certain circumstances, might even go to a Speaker's Conference. I hope, therefore, that the House will not regard this as a narrow point of party advantage. The time has come for us to restate certain principles: candidates are chosen by the localities which have a chance to vote for them; when they stand as candidates they are all subject to indentical rules on expenditure; political parties, candidates and everyone else should discourage the media circus which brings Parliament into contempt.
I am opposed to a high deposit. I believe that it would be better to have nominations, so that the measure of support can be seen. I fought 17 candidates, some of whom were wholly frivolous in character. One man stood with the slogan, "Buy your Chesterfield couch in Thame". That was an advertising gimmick. By paying his deposit he received a free post to everyone in the constituency. That is not the way in which Parliament should organise elections, whether by-elections or general elections.
I hope that the House will consider my point seriously and not make the change, as once it is made the argument for raising the level for all expenditure to the by-election limit will become unanswerable. It will then be argued again that by-elections are special and the level will be raised once more.
One of the most important characteristics of parliamentary democracy in this country, compared with congressional elections in America, is that in the United States they spend millions and millions of dollars promoting candidates. Only wealthy people or those with massive support can stand for Congress, which is moving away from the idea upon which the franchise was founded —the principle that anyone should be able to stand for Parliament and manage a campaign without being outpaced by those whose purses are longer.
I seriously urge the House not to accept the clause, and I hope that you, Mr. Walker, understand that when I make these points I do so with considerable sincerity and a great deal of experience of by-elections and parliamentary elections.

Sir Hal Miller: While I do not wish to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) down all his favourite paths, I have considerable sympathy with his views on by-election expenses. I was responsible for running a large number of by-elections, and I was concerned about the reported levels of expenditure. However, I did not understand from the right hon. Gentleman's dissertation why, just because the media descend on a locality, it should be necessary for the candidates to spend more money. I have not seen that connection. My experience was that some of the minority parties regarded these occasions as a wonderful

opportunity for the band wagon to roll and undertook considerable expenditure, to which, perhaps, other parties might want to respond in some lesser degree.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should think most seriously before creating a different category of expenditure for these occasions. I shall listen closely to the Minister's argument as to why we should support this clause, because I find it offensive, both in principle and as a matter of practicality. I have sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions that we are running the grave risk of increasing expenditure limits for all elections and opening an undesirable door. I shall listen closely to the Minister's justification of why, merely because there is so much media attention, it is necessary for the candidates to spend more money.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The debate is worth while because it requires the Government to explain the reasons for their proposals. I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) and by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Several issues are at stake here.
First, by countenancing much higher expenditure, are we disadvantaging certain parties' or candidates' chances of electoral success? In an age of advertising, those with a lot of money will spend to the maximum and do better in an election than people who have less.
Secondly, when a vacancy for a seat occurs, the by-election campaign to win it begins within days. If the seat becomes vacant due to a resignation, it begins immediately; if due to a death, after a decent interval.

Sir Hal Miller: It depends how you define decent.

Mr. Hughes: I agree.
Sometimes, a long time may elapse before the election. By-elections are not like general elections, for which, thank goodness, there are short campaigns. Campaigns can take months. I cannot understand how we can expect the same amount of money to be spent on a two-week campaign as on a campaign lasting four, five or six months. The longer the campaign, the more money will be spent.
Thirdly, I presume that the Government's argument is based on practicality, not principle. I share the concern of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield that the reason for the Government's proposal is their belief that the rules have long since been ignored. If that is so, it is illogical to distinguish between the levels of expenditure, given that a general election is an election of 650 Members, constituency by constituency, not an election by a list system for parties. If, as the thin end of the wedge, we are now introducing proposals affecting by-elections, there is no reason in principle why the same election expenses should not apply in general elections.
If so, we must deal with the whole subject of general election expenses. The greatest distortion at these elections is to be seen in the different amounts spent nationally by the various parties; they affect the result far more than the moneys spent supporting local candidates.
It is unprincipled to argue for this partial change without addressing the point raised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. I do not complain on behalf of myself or my colleagues, but other even smaller parties find it difficult to take on the party of Government, with all the


machinery and money that it can bring to bear—or to take on the Labour party, backed as it is by the unions, which invest massively in general election expenses.
I fear that this unprincipled proposal will not last long; it has no real justification and it is being introduced as a matter of temporary expediency.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I cannot see how this measure will work in practice, because there is an exemption from election expenses—regular newspapers, which can say what they like, promote candidates, endorse them editorially and so on. It is not beyond the wit of political parties to produce newsletters. We have seen them in by-elections; the name of Focus comes to mind. They can be produced daily or even hourly throughout the campaign.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Not quite.

Mr. Jones: I appreciate the difficulties of manpower. However, the newspapers can be produced regularly and can be used to get around the expenditure limits without too much difficulty.

Mr. Corbyn: I apologise for missing part of the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) because I was delayed outside on urgent business. I am sure that he will forgive me.
I had tabled some amendments to clause 6, which were not selected, so it is clear that I have several objections to it. The first is the complete nonsense that the by-election expenses limit should be set high because by-election expenses are higher. Paper, petrol, telephone calls and all the other such factors do not cost any more. The only difference is that the massive interest in by-elections makes them into a media circus, with the local electorate being made into mere spectators in what should be their election campaign. The cost of all that leads the parties to believe that they should have an increased limit to meet the interests of the media.
If this provision goes through, I suspect that the next proposal will be to increase the limit for each parliamentary election by a similar amount. Once the precedent has been set in the by-elections, people will logically ask why, if this amount of £14,000 plus 16p per elector can be spent in by-elections, it should not be spent in general elections. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said—I caught the end of his speech—we are then into the American situation, where those who spend the most win.
I agree that there is a case for increasing the expenses limit, and it should be increased regularly. However, I suggest that it should be uprated annually as the new register comes into force on 16 February each year. That would make the expenses limit open and clear in advance of the electoral year. I see nothing wrong with that. At least we would know where we are going, and would do so with an agreed figure.
There is also an omission from clause 6. It should abolish the electoral deposit and introduce instead a requirement to submit large numbers of names as a demonstration of political support. That would be better than the present system, which shows only the ability to pay one's way to get on the ballot paper, and would be more democratic. This is a bad Bill, and clause 6 is particularly bad, so I hope that the Committee will not accept it.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: There is a certain tension between the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), who spoke first to the clause on behalf of the Opposition, and welcomed it. The clause is justified for three reasons. The first is that the plain fact of life is that the by-election becomes the focus of national political interest. It is a partial view to describe it a focus for media interest. It is, but it is also a focus for political interest, and politicians go to by-elections in great numbers. One of the difficult questions is the extent of the expenditure attributable to those visiting politicians that should be recorded in the electoral expenses. There was a day, quite a long time ago, when Labour candidates were pleased to have the right hon. Member for Chesterfield support them at a by-election. I should be interested to know how often his travelling expenses were shown in the candidates' expenses.

Mr. Benn: The Minister is making a cheap point that may entertain his colleagues, but he is missing the point that I made. He is saying that the limit is exceeded, although he knows—as everyone knows—that the agent makes a statutory declaration. He has said that the law is disregarded, and that we all know that it is disregarded. He also made a comment about my travelling expenses, or anyone else's for that matter.
The hon. Gentleman is a Minister responsible for upholding the laws passed by Parliament. He has now told the House that those laws are disregarded, and I should like him to clarify that. Is he saying that the limit is being increased because the statutory declarations made by the parties in recent by-elections have, in the Government's view, been false? If that is his argument let us consider it on that basis, but it is a serious matter for a Government to say, "We know that the law is being broken, so we are going to change it."

12 midnight

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is not rising to the occasion; nor is he focusing on the issue. The issue is this: by-elections are of considerable political importance. As a consequence, the parties, often for a prolonged period—I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about this—pour a large amount of resources into the constituency. Those resources frequently take the form of speakers of high renown, such as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.
It is important to remember that only the courts can clarify which expenses are properly recordable and which are not. This is a seriously grey area. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's expenses, incurred when he is travelling to a by-election, should, in law, be incurred; generally the view has been taken that such expenses are not properly recordable, but I can envisage circumstances in which the courts would take a different view.
Because of the volume of effort put into particular by-elections, candidates' expenses may be very close to the ceiling. If the courts were to take an adverse view—a view inconsistent with the practice of 30 years or more—individual candidates and agents could find themselves seriously at risk. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield will know the nature of that risk better than most: it involves disqualification from membership of the House,


with the possibility of a fine and imprisonment. That cannot be right, and the House has a duty to remedy such grey areas.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield will, I trust, bear in mind that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it plain that we shall re-examine the whole question of expenses. As an interim measure, however, the Committee is considering this clause, which has the general support of hon. Members.

Mr. Alan Meale: This is very interesting. Is the Minister saying that, if the clause is passed, the expenses of all parliamentarians visiting by-elections will have to be submitted?

Mr. Hogg: I am not saying that. I am saying that the items of expenditure which are properly recordable are not defined exactly in law. Consequently, there is uncertainty about whether—I cite this merely as an example—the expenses of a visiting politician should be recordable.
Clearly, in a number of cases, if all the expenses of politicians visiting by-elections had been recorded, it might well have transpired that the limits had been exceeded. I do not believe that anyone present would wish to deny an individual candidate the opportunity to attract the right hon. Member for Chesterfield; indeed, the Conservative party would be delighted if he appeared at every by-election in which a Labour candidate was participating. However, we do no want to put candidates at risk, and I cannot believe that hon. Members wish to put candidates at risk. It is on that basis that I commend the clause to the Committee.

Mr. Cecil Franks: I have listened very carefully to my hon. Friend, but with the greatest respect I feel that he has made a spurious point. There is no difference between a visiting parliamentarian and any single constituent who chooses to travel from his home to wherever the particular constituency party or association sends him and who uses his car or public transport to get there. Although in theory my hon. Friend is right that the courts could decide that any money spent on transport for the purpose of assisting at a by-election should be recorded, to do so would be fatuous because it would be so totally impracticable. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that it is possible to draw a distinction between visiting parliamentarians and those who assist at by-elections.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is making my point. He says, quite rightly, that it is difficult to draw a distinction between a visiting parliamentarian and a large number of volunteers. He went on to say that in theory the courts could hold those expenses to be recordable. So they could. That is the problem. In a by-election, not only do prominent politicians come forward to support a particular candidate but very frequently, because it is part of our democratic procedures, a very large number of volunteers come forward, too. They incur expenses of many kinds. I can envisage courts taking the view that those expenses should be recordable. There is no point in saying that the matter will not be raised. I most certainly foresee the time when a number of minority parties that are not represented in this place at the moment may seek to raise the issue.

Sir Hal Miller: I realise that the Minister has to walk delicately, but unfortunately this clause has taken the cork out of the bottle. We are now having to discuss in the open matters which previously we preferred not to discuss. I have very considerable experience of these matters. Of course there is a grey area, as the Minister has just reminded us, but the Bill does not clarify that grey area in any way. Whereas it could previously be said that the current limitation on expenses acted as a brake on expenditure, the Minister is now lifting his foot off the brake and encouraging a great deal more expenditure.
It would help the Committee if, without it being too difficult for him, he could say why the new suggested limit is thought to be appropriate. According to a rough calculation, it would amount to about £26,000 in my constituency. That is a very considerable sum of money, but we have been given no clear idea of what expenses a sum of money of that magnitude would be expected to cover. I ask the Minister to help us, because it is a matter of some principle.

Mr. Hogg: Of course it is a matter of some importance, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it, but he will forgive me, I hope, if I say that he does me less than justice. He will bear in mind that I have already said that this is only an interim measure. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made plain in his Second Reading speech and in a parliamentary answer, we are proposing, after discussions between the parties, to embark upon consultations as to expenses across the board.
The new clause is designed not to settle the position finally, but merely to protect it until that process of consultation is complete and it is possible to implement the product of that consultation process. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) also asked how the new figures had been reached. There is nothing magic about that. They were the result of consultations between interested parties. As I say that, I fear that I shall be accused of collusion.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is certainly trying to be helpful and I welcome that. As the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) said, we are all treading carefully, wary about what might appear from the bottle when it is uncorked. No doubt we all rely on our agents to deal with these matters and happily claim ignorance. That would apply to both sides of the House. I wish to ask the Minister two specific questions. First, can he give an estimate of the current expenditure in each of the by-elections? Secondly, as the Home Office must have done some work on this, can the Minister estimate the current expenditure by constituency in the last general election? If we are to have change before the next general election, that is relevant to the interim and final proposals.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman flatters me. I cannot answer either question without notice and I shall reply to him in writing.

Mr. Benn: Can the Minister help me on three points? Alternative amendments would have clarified the issue around which he built his case. If the Bill said that in considering election expenses, the travelling expenses of speakers visiting constituencies were to be excluded, that would have clarified a matter on which the Minister said the courts had not made judgment. It would have been a permissible amendment.
The second point that the Minister omits is that, in general elections, circuses of party leaders travel around and Members of Parliament visit other constituencies. I have no idea how those expenses are carried, but I represented a big city for 33 years, and at every election Mr. Attlee, Mr. Gaitskell or Mr. Wilson would visit, and presumably the expenses were quite substantial. There is no argument whatever in respect of those constituencies that attract major party leaders to differentiate a by-election from a general election.
Finally, the Minister said that the new clause is the result of informal consultations, which has been a characteristic of the Bill's consideration in Committee. If consultations are to take place—and must take place, because we have raised a subject that most right hon. and hon. Members do not discuss often—there is no reason why the provision should be in the Bill. Another Bill should be produced quite quickly, clarifying what is an election expense on the basis that general elections and by-elections are the same. With great respect to the Minister, who has not addressed the points that I have raised, this is not the right clause for the Bill and it should not have been included on the basis that the Bill happened to be before the House on quite another matter to provide a special exception for by-elections which generally do not contribute much to a public respect for parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Hogg: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, his intervention does not go to the root of the matter. It is perfectly true that the travelling expenses of visiting politicians are excluded from recordable expense. But the right hon. Gentleman is not focusing on the fact that there are a whole variety of expenses which are in doubt. I gave one example—travelling expenses—but there are many others. The point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is particularly important. At what point in the range of expenditure do expenses become recordable? Is it on the adoption of the candidate, or at some prior date? The point that I am making to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield is that a range of difficult questions must be addressed. For that reason, we propose to proceed by public consultation, and clause 6 is designed to protect the position pending the conclusion of that consultation.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield will know that on consultation we seek to move ahead with as much agreement as can reasonably be achieved. In the Bill, we have tried to identify at least two prior issues of high priority—expenses and the extended franchise. On that basis, only two elements are in the Bill.

Mr. Maclennan: I have much sympathy with the Government's purpose, which they declared on Second Reading, for this interim measure. As the Minister spoke, I became more concerned about what will be the longer-term solution to the problem.
Given the attendance tonight, it is clear that hon. Members take an interest in the subject. The Secretary of State is to initiate a process of public consultation. Has consideration been given to what I believe is quite normal in such matters—the setting up of a Speaker's Conference, and without delay, because this is pre-eminently a House of Commons matter? It seems to me that the Government should not necessarily take the lead in organizing

consultation. I hope that the Minister will say whether he has considered that and whether he would look favourably on it.

Mr. Hogg: The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is yes, consideration has been given to the proposal that he made. It has been thought best to proceed in the way that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined on Second Reading, which is the approach that I commend.

Mr. Benn: I listened carefully to the Minister, but I am wholly unpersuaded. Like every hon. Member, I have had to sign the statutory declaration, which is a solemn thing to have to do. Not only the agent but the Member must sign it and, as the Minister rightly said, when the hon. Member signs it he runs the risk of getting into difficulties with disqualification, punishment or, so far as I know, imprisonment. On a technicality, I once had to ask for relief from election courts, so I am speaking with some feeling.
The proper way to deal with the matter is to clarify what is an election expense. If people help by driving their cars around a constituency, it must be decided whether such expenditure should be included. If it is, one is faced with the impossible task of deciding who travelled where to take people to the polls. Without doubt, that should not be included. Expenditure incurred when people visit a constituency should not be included, although clearly there would have to be consultation.
The issue, surely, is the definition of an election expense and the proper limit. My understanding of the reason for a limit is to stop an enormous sum of money being spent not on bringing in visiting speakers but on influencing people by mass propaganda, which gives an advantage to those who have the longest purses. For all those reasons, I shall oppose clause 6 in the Lobby, not because I do not want the matter to be taken seriously and urgently but because the Government have come to a shoddy way of tackling a problem that is of legitimate concern to the public and to hon. Members who are required to make statutory declarations.
Some Members die unexpectedly. When a prospective candidate is adopted as a candidate, he will not know whether he will fight a general election or a by-election. Just after a general election, there is always a wave of by-elections. First, there is the general election expenditure and, if the freshly elected Member goes to the House of Lords or the EEC, there is a by-election and immediately the expenditure increases—at a time when the turnout usually decreases.
I ask the Minister to consider this matter. I will seek to divide the Committee. This is not a matter that just needs discussions between the national agents of the two parties. It requires public scrutiny and discussion and a clear statement of the principles upon which the law is to be founded, followed by enforcement of the law so that people do not apparently disregard it.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 126, Noes 13.

Division No. 284]
[12.20 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Alton, David


Allason, Rupert
Arbuthnot, James






Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Janman, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Beith, A. J.
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Kirkhope, Timothy


Boswell, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Latham, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Lawrence, Ivan


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Burns, Simon
Lightbown, David


Burt, Alistair
Lilley, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Maclean, David


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Maclennan, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
McLoughlin, Patrick


Carttiss, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Chapman, Sydney
Mans, Keith


Chope, Christopher
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Cran, James
Mills, Iain


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Curry, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Darling, Alistair
Moss, Malcolm


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Neubert, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Nicholls, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Devlin, Tim
Norris, Steve


Dewar, Donald 
Paice, James


Dorrell, Stephen
Porter, David (Waveney)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Portillo, Michael


Dover, Den
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Durant, Tony
Redwood, John


Fallon, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Favell, Tony
Roe, Mrs Marion


Fishburn, John Dudley
Sackville, Hon Tom


Forman, Nigel
Sayeed, Jonathan


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Forth, Eric
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Foster, Derek
Stern, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Stevens, Lewis


French, Douglas
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Gill, Christopher
Sumberg, David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Summerson, Hugo


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Gow, Ian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Gregory, Conal
Thurnham, Peter


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hague, William
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hanley, Jeremy
Wallace, James


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Waller, Gary


Hawkins, Christopher
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Hind, Kenneth
Warren, Kenneth


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Watts, John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Wheeler, John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Widdecombe, Ann


Howells, Geraint
Wood, Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Yeo, Tim


Hunter, Andrew



Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Irvine, Michael
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Jack, Michael
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


Jackson, Robert



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Spearing, Nigel


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Vaz, Keith


Cryer, Bob
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Loyden, Eddie
Wray, Jimmy


Mahon, Mrs Alice



Meale, Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Tony Benn and


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


Primarolo, Dawn

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 14.

Division No. 285]
[12.32 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Jack, Michael


Allason, Rupert
Jackson, Robert


Alton, David
Janman, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Atkins, Robert
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Beith, A. J.
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knapman, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Latham, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Lightbown, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Lilley, Peter


Burns, Simon
Maclean, David


Burt, Alistair
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Malins, Humfrey


Carrington, Matthew
Mans, Keith


Carttiss, Michael
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Chapman, Sydney
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Chope, Christopher
Miller, Sir Hal


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mills, Iain


Cran, James
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Monro, Sir Hector


Curry, David
Moss, Malcolm


Darling, Alistair
Neubert, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Nicholls, Patrick


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Day, Stephen
Norris, Steve


Devlin, Tim
Paice, James


Dewar, Donald
Porter, David (Waveney)


Dorrell, Stephen
Portillo, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Dover, Den
Redwood, John


Durant, Tony
Riddick, Graham


Fallon, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Favell, Tony
Sackville, Hon Tom


Fishburn, John Dudley
Sayeed, Jonathan


Forman, Nigel
Shaw, David (Dover)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Forth, Eric
Stern, Michael


Foster, Derek
Stevens, Lewis


Franks, Cecil
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Freeman, Roger
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


French, Douglas
Sumberg, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Summerson, Hugo


Gill, Christopher
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Gow, Ian
Thurnham, Peter


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Gregory, Conal
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Wallace, James


Hague, William
Waller, Gary


Hanley, Jeremy
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Warren, Kenneth


Hawkins, Christopher
Watts, John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Wheeler, John


Hind, Kenneth
Widdecombe, Ann


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Wood, Timothy


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Yeo, Tim


Howells, Geraint



Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hunter, Andrew
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Mr. Alan Howarth.


Irvine, Michael



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Meale, Alan


Cryer, Bob
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gordon, Mildred
Nellist, Dave


Loyden, Eddie
Primarolo, Dawn






Skinner, Dennis



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

PETITIONS

National Health Service Reform

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I wish to present a petition which reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled,
The Humble Petition of patients of a general practitioner's in Pontefract, showeth
The patients of the practice, believe that the Health Service as it exists outside the private sector is under threat and could collapse.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Government to withdraw the White Paper "Working for Patients
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
The petition is signed by 1,800 people, and it has my full support.

To lie upon the Table.

Community Charge

Mr. George J. Buckley: I present a petition on behalf of my constituents about the injustice and hardship that the introduction of the poll tax will cause. The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the residents of South Kirkby, Pontefract.
That we draw to the attention of the House of Commons that the introduction of the poll tax will cause unnecessary

hardship on people living in Low Rated Houses owned or rented, this iniquitous tax will hit many people on low income many in my area who have served the Country in the Armed Forces during the 1939/45 war and many who have worked a lifetime down the coal mines. We feel that not only will the Poll Tax have immediate effect of hardship on these people when it is introduced, but will have a more serious effect when the transitional period is over.
Wherefore our petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Government to bring in amendment to this Legislation to protect these people from the ravages of this unfair tax.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
The petition is signed by 1,200 of my constituents and it has my full support.

To lie upon the Table.

Football (Identity Cards)

Mr. Bob Cryer: I have great pleasure in presenting this petition on behalf of the residents of Bradford, South who wish to express their very strong opposition to the football identity card scheme. They are especially concerned that the lessons of Hillsborough have not been learnt by the Government, who are forcing the legislation through the House and are already suggesting all-night sittings. That is a disgraceful trampling on democratic parliamentary rights.
The petition states:
To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Parliament assembled showeth that the undersigned signatories express their condemnation of proposed legislation to force football supporters to carry identity cards.
We believe that a system of identity cards will have little impact on the problem of football related violence, will hinder football's attempts to attract a new generation of supporters and will lead to the eventual demise of the game as a spectator sport.
Wherefore your petitioner prays that the Government bring forward proposals which have the support of genuine football supporters. And your petitioner is duty bound, will pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Investment (North-West Region)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. David Alton: Any hon. Member rising in the House at a quarter to one in the morning to initiate an Adjournment debate could hardly say that it was a matter of great pleasure. I am especially grateful to the Minister for having sat though the previous debates and presentations of petitions to be here to answer the debate on the subject of infrastructure and investment expenditure in the north-west region.
The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) is also here to share in the debate and to show the cross-party support for this subject, which need not divide people on partisan lines but can unite people from our region in the need to develop our infrastructure to meet the two challenges of the 1990s—the coming of the single European market in 1992 and the opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993. Those two key events will make or break our region and will determine whether we become the gateway to the European Community or a mere backwater of Europe. We are not looking for sympathy or for handouts, but more for a recognition of the challenges that lie ahead and a willingness from Government to lend a helping hand. Despite the problems that the region faces, we are confident about its future and we want a partnership of public and private enterprise, of central and local government, of north and south.
I should like the Minister to consider a series of initiatives which would guarantee the future prosperity of our region. First, the region needs a carefully planned infrastructure to meet the ever-increasing transportation demands. That means better road and rail links. The existing motorway network, like the curate's egg, is good in parts, but the railway system is another matter altogether. How inappropriate it is that on the very day that our railways have again been closed by industrial action the Chancellor should announce his unwillingness to see improved investment in the system. Even more paradoxically, the announcement came within minutes of British Rail announcing a massive profit of £300 million. That is a staggering situation, given that it is sometimes impossible for people travelling to the north-west to find seats on InterCity trains. The local services are no better.
I have recently been in correspondence with the chairman of British Rail, Sir Robert Reid, about the service between Liverpool and Manchester. That follows a letter which I received from a constituent, who catalogued for me the number of times on which his train arrived late. On the first day, 23 May, it was five minutes late. The next day, it was 23 minutes late. Thereafter it was late by 15 minutes, 33 minutes, 10 minutes and 38 minutes. At the end of the letter, my constituent wrote:
I am now near to distraction. I'm spending so much time waiting at Oxford Road Station at Manchester for non-existent trains or ones that are horrendously late. Once or twice a month I can live with but as a daily occurrence it's a nightmare.
In reply, Sir Robert Reid wrote:
It is true that the radical changes in the Manchester area timetable introduced on 15 May have been plagued by shortages of rolling stock which have adversely affected punctuality and reliability. Indeed, we have been experiencing

difficulties in many parts of the North West due to the unsatisfactory gearboxes in our 'Pacer' trains necessarily being replaced by the manufacturers.
All this points to the need for adequate investment in our railway system.
The condition of the sidings and the track around Edge Hill station, which I think is the world's oldest railway scan still in use, and of many other local stations, as well as the approach to Liverpool Lime street, which is like the black hole of Calcutta, is an appalling advertisement for British Rail and for the city. Those areas, which are owned by British Rail, are dirty and neglected. Despite a recent meeting that I had with regional officers, little or nothing has been done to improve matters. Against that backdrop, British Rail's planned expenditure for future development is minuscule.
North-west Members are rightly anxious because British Rail's proposals for high-speed rail links and for railheads linked into the European network once the Channel tunnel is opened, have not been properly thought through. I am especially anxious that the railhead should be developed within the Liverpool freeport area to ensure that the freeport, which has been extremely successful, is able to capitalise on the opportunities that 1992 will present. On Friday last, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was good enough to accompany me to the freeport during his visit to the region. I am sure that he will confirm what I have said about the railhead, and I am pleased that he is in his place tonight.
On 6 March, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport about Merseytravel's anxieties that British Rail may not be wholly committed to providing direct through trains from the continent to the north-west. Forecasts suggest that a market will exist for at least two daytime high-speed through services from the north-west to Paris or Brussels, and probably an overnight service with a mixture of sleeping cars and reclining seat coaches as well. This would offer about 1,000 seats a day between the north-west and the rest of Europe. In addition, it is estimated that 1,000 lorry movements a day will transfer to rail post-1993. Three quarters of these movements will start or finish beyond London.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that the £150 million investment planned by British Rail on electrification, track improvements and new locomotives will be adequate to meet the demand. I hope that he will also say whether British Rail's choice of King's Cross as the second London terminal for Channel tunnel passenger trains will place the north-west at a disadvantage, as Merseytravel believes.
I am especially heartened that the north-west region of the TUC, as well as the local chamber of commerce, have come out in favour of the land bridge proposal and have argued that infrastructure investment should provide opportunities for competing properly within Europe. In a note to north-west Members, the North West Regional Council of the TUC stated:
Preliminary studies have pointed to the urgent need for strategic thinking, particularly on infrastructure investment and regional policy, if the net effects of developments in the early 1990s are to be positive.
It adds:
Some work has begun already on the concept of Liverpool as a 'land bridge': European-bound container traffic from North America could be received at Liverpool and conveyed by through trains to European destinations. This option offers shorter journey times and improves


operating efficiency by avoiding congestion in the Channel. The Merseyside Chamber of Commerce and Industry is working on a feasibility study. The NW TUC welcomes and fully supports this initiative … In addition to the improvements in the rail network, an integrated transport infrastructure is essential if the North West is to gain from the Channel Tunnel. Recognising that, if rail is successful in dramatically increasing its share of freight traffic, a major proportion of freight will still have to be carried by road. Investment in the road network is therefore also an integral part of the programme necessary to the North West.
I strongly support what the north-west TUC and the chamber of commerce have argued, and they have the full support of north-west Members of Parliament. So, too, has the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company in its proposals for expanding the very successful freeport. That demonstrates how, given the opportunity, business can flourish in the north-west of England.
The Government established six freeports and, without trying to undermine any of the others, the other five have done pretty lamentably, whereas the Liverpool freeport has turned over £300 million-worth of business since its inception and has been a major success story.
In a letter to me today, following the meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and I had with Mr. Frank Rowbotham of the Liverpool freeport last Friday, Mr. Rowbotham states:
To ensure the development of the first phase of the Freeport Park"—
some 20,000 sq ft—
an urban development grant of 34 per cent. was necessary. Following the success of the first phase, an application for now what is City Grant Assistance has been submitted. It is still essential that the same level of assistance is forthcoming to make the next stage competitive and viable.
In other words, if the freeport is to continue to be successful, it will need a continued helping hand from Government.
On the Mersey estuary, the Mersey barrage presents an opportunity for a major piece of infrastructure and development. If the Government would give this project the green light, it could provide not just energy for local industries but an impounded area for more deep-sea facilities and massive numbers of construction jobs in an area in which, as the Minister well knows, there is a great need for more opportunities in the construction industry. The Government have given money for the feasibility study, which I welcome, and the project would involve the cleaning up of the Mersey at a time when more than 200 companies have permission to pollute the Mersey through the exemptions which they have been given. The project would not merely be a way of improving the quality of life, but would create more employment and attract more people to use the river as an area from leisure recreation and amenity.
One of the great advantages which the Government could bring to the area would be to support the campaign which has been waged by the Liverpool Echo newspaper and others for the Channel 5 television station to be based in the north-west. That would give the area a chance to develop its own media and infrastructure for promoting its image. If Glasgow, which has infinitely more problems than the major conurbations in the north-west, has been able to turn its image around, there is no reason why Liverpool, Manchester and the townships of the north-west should not do the same.
Basing Channel 5 in our region would prove a major asset and a great bonus to us. Similarly, other public bodies and private enterprise should also consider

devolving to the north-west, which has a great deal going for it. The south-east economy is increasingly overheated and bloated, and the north-west has enormous appeal to tourists and companies seeking a good quality of life for their employees. As the south-east economy falters, with high interest rates, soaring overheads, a weak pound, tight labour markets and a rapidly deteriorating quality of life, the north-west could become a prosperous and booming gateway to Europe.
There are still unemployment disparities between north and south. Last Thursday, Business Strategy, an independent forecaster, stated that in 1990 unemployment in the north could still be as high as 9·4 per cent., which is twice that of the south-east. That need not be a curse—it should be a challenge. This debate gives the House a chance to stress our bipartisan support for a Government strategy based on turning the curse of unemployment into a challenge to provide the north-west with the infrastructure necessary if we are properly to meet the challenge of 1992 and 1993.

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for arranging this debate and for allowing me to take part, briefly, in it. I agree with him that it is regrettable that the only time we have a debate on the north-west is when we are successful in the Ballot for private Members' motions or Adjournment debates, and I believe that the north-west is far too important to be dealt with in that way.
No one living in or visiting the north-west can fail to recognise, or be impressed by, the enormous amount of investment that has taken place there in recent years—investment in roads, rail, housing, industry, and the National Health Service, and in clearing up dereliction. But it is the investment in the highway network which has been most important in helping the region to help itself and in generating further investment—certainly in my part of the north-west, east Lancashire.
We are grateful for all that has been achieved, but there is a pressing need for even more if we are to take advantage of the opportunities now being opened to us. We need help to improve access to and within urban areas, to employment centres and airports and to Europe and the Channel tunnel. In the north-west as a whole, total investment requirements to meet the needs of motorways and trunk roads alone have been estimated at £1·2 billion, making it necessary to double the current level of investment to reach the desired standard for the national road network in the north-west by 2001.
Such investment would stimulate growth in employment and tourism, as recent investment in motorways in east Lancashire has shown. That investment has enabled Hyndburn borough council to attract an enthusiastic and energetic private developer, Mr. Eddy Quiligotti, to create a tourist attraction of national significance on land at the M65-A56-M66 junction at Huncoat. The estimated capital development cost of the scheme, known locally as the Winter Wonderland, is in excess of £250 million. It is expected to create 2,000 direct full-time jobs and 1,200 off-site jobs, and it is hoped that it will attract 4 million tourists each year. The park will provide a superb range of entertainment, sporting, eating and specialist shopping facilities. It is the best news that Hyndburn has had for years. All this has been made possible because the existing


or planned motorway connections to the M6, M61 and M62 mean that 5·5 million people now live within one hour's drive of Accrington—hence the importance of more investment.
Tourism in the north-west is a major expansion industry, and it is consequently a matter of concern that section 4 of the tourism grant aid scheme continues to be suspended. That scheme has been a vital pump-priming aid and its reinstatement would be beneficial to tourism in the north-west, not least to the Winter Wonderland project. With the reinstatement of section 4 and increased investment in the highways, I believe that the future of the north-west will be bright. I hope that the Government will listen to and take seriously many of the points made in this short debate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for raising the interests—

Mr. Alton: Grateful?

Mr. Atkins: Perhaps grateful is not the right word, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. None the less, it is important that the interests of the region that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) represent should be drawn to the attention of more people. As both said, the north-west is an area that is doing extremely well. Like many other areas, it has problems that it would be wrong to dismiss out of hand, but in general what is going on in the north-west, and even in the north-west extremities of our regions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will acknowledge, has developed great strengths about which we should talk far more.
A few days ago a major contract, which has many ramifications for the area, was awarded to a company in the north-west, Leyland DAF. The contract, which is to build the new truck for the Army, is worth £500 million, and transfers work that was originally intended for the south-east to the north-west. That is a tribute to what has been going on in our region.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill said much about transport matters. I shall touch on them wearing as much a constituency and a regional hat as a ministerial one, but he will know that these are, broadly speaking, matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I found myself drawn, even to the point of sedentary comment, to some of what he said about the railways. Like him, and my hon. Friend, I travel on British Rail at the weekends, so I have sympathy with the points that he made about tardiness, but much money has been spent on British Rail, and more will be spent. I shall draw, with a great deal of pleasure and support, his comments about infrastructure investment to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He may not be surprised to learn that I am doing so regularly off my own bat anyway.
Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend spoke about tourism. My hon. Friend will know, and the hon. Member for Mossley Hill will, in his usual charitable way, agree, that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr.

Lee), who is the Minister with responsibility for tourism, has worked long and hard, all over the country, but specifically in the north-west, to ensure the development of certain parts of our region, whether they are rural and conventionally attractive, seaside resorts or areas of industrial archaeological interest. The new tourist attractions mentioned by my hon. Friend, and those in my area, let alone those in Liverpool, are a tribute not only to my hon. Friend the Minister but to the tourism industry, which is developing regularly.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Minister take into account an important aspect of the future of Liverpool, Merseyside, and the hinterland of the north-west? Liverpool as a port is still an important factor. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that Liverpool maintains its port transactions and transport. Infrastructure is required to make Liverpool accessible to the continental ports, so that the port, which is still part of the economy, is taken into account in the general developments.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is difficult for me to be drawn on matters that are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Equally, as a north-west Member, and one who spent two years of his working life in Liverpool associated with shipping and other related activities, I know only too well the importance of the port of Liverpool. Many of us recognise that while Liverpool has had its difficulties—I make no partisan point here—it is crucial in every respect to the development and continued success of the north-west, along with Manchester, through its airport, and other areas in both the extremities and the centre. The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point about infrastructure support, and I would go along with it.
The hon. Gentleman also made a fair point about the image of the north-west, as, indeed, did my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn. Many of us would agree that the image is often portrayed in "Coronation Street" terms, and that there is a great deal more to our region than that—not only in the industrial sector but in tourism and, above all, in the attractive countryside and the people who contribute so much to the success of the north-west.
Hon. Members may know that, although I represent a north-western constituency, I am a southerner by origin. I have now been in the north-west for some 13 years, and I have been immensely impressed by the quality, dedication, enthusiasm and sheer commitment of the work force at all levels. They want to improve their area and to do their task—however it is perceived, and whatever the industry—to the best of their ability. If it is nothing else, the strength of the north-west is a work force that contributes so much to what is achieved, whether in my constituency, the hon. Gentleman's or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn. I think that we would all agree about that.
In my experience of travelling around the region, both as an Industry Minister with regional responsibilities and as a local Member of Parliament—I think that I can say this without too much contradiction, saving the presence of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr.


Wallace), who is from the extemities of our nation—the north-west provides the best work force in the United Kingdom, if they are properly guided.

Mr. David Maclean: Especially Penrith.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend must not make sedentary interventions of that nature, or he will provoke me.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of 1992, which provides a challenge as well as an opportunity. We are well placed to meet that challenge in the north-west, for various reasons that have been discussed this evening and on earlier occasions. I believe that the British economy and our regional economy are fundamentally strong, and that the challenge of facing up to what will effectively be a domestic market of some 320 million people—with all the opportunities that that provides—can be met.
I use the word "challenge" because, if we do not recognise the opportunity by the region's great manufacturing, service and professional industries, other companies and organisations on the mainland of Europe will seek the opportunity to come to us and beat us at our own game. Any area within the region that hon. Members care to name—Liverpool, Manchester, Preston, Accrington, even Penrith—has many virtues, developed over decades or perhaps centuries. Perhaps occasionally we are a little too complacent and smug about the fact that the world can pass it by and somehow, if we carry on as we are, we shall be all right. We can do that no longer, for 1992 will present a challenge that we ignore at out peril.
It has been the task of my Department, first, to ensure that industries are aware of exactly what 1992 means.

When we started our successful campaign, about one in two companies—that includes our region—were aware of what was going on, which meant that 70 or 80 per cent. were not. As a result of our campaign, the figure is nearly 100 per cent. Not all companies, however, know that they must make the decision to face up to the opportunity. It is a message that I invite the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn to convey to the companies and the people in their constituencies. It is simply, as Winston Churchill said all those years ago, that action is needed "this day", to make sure that one knows what needs to be done and gets on with it.
I am quite convinced that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn are fully aware of the strengths of our region and recognise the challenges that have been presented to it, of which the Channel tunnel is one. I do not wish to be drawn as yet as to where the location of investment should be. Many of my constituents take one view; many of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn may take another. I am content to leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who is responsible for transport matters, but I shall put to him that view and that concern.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill for raising in his own inimitable way the interest and the concern of our region; which the Government share. He is right to say that it is a cross-party matter. Representatives of the three major parties are here tonight. I shall do my best, as a Minister with responsibility for the regions and industry, to ensure that our region gets the best that is available to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past One o'clock.